D 

0 

0 
0 
8 
7 
8 
9: 
91 
1  1 
i 
9 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  EACILITY 

■1    1  III  nil 

EUROPEAN  WAR  No.  2. 

[Printed  and  distributed  October  21,  1913.] 


DEPARTMENT    OF    STATE 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE  WITH 

BELLIGERENT  GOVERNMENTS 

RELATING  TO  NEUTRAL  RIGHTS 

AND  DUTIES. 


WASHINGTON  :  GOVERNMENT  PRINTrNQ  OFFICE  :  1916 


JNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNl/^ 
LOS  ANGELES 

JUL  1^^  W 

LIBRARY 
GOVT.  PUBS.  ROOM 


LIST  OF  PAPERS. 

PART  I. 

Proclamations  of  Neutrality  and  Papers  relating  to  Neutrality. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

1915. 
May    24 

Proclamation  by  the  President 

15 

AMERICAN   NEUTRALITY— AN   APPEAL  BY  THE   PRESIDENT. 


1914. 
Aug.    18 


Requests  the  assistance  of  citizens  in  maintaining 
neutrality. 


17 


NEUTRALITY  IN   THE  WATERS   OF  THE   ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 


1914. 
Oct.     10 


Text  of  protocol . 


18 


PROCLAMATION   OF  NEUTRALITY— PANAMA  CANAL  ZONE. 


1914. 
Nov.   13 


Proclamation  by  the  President. 


PREVENTION   OF  THE   VIOLATION   OF  NEUTRALITY. 


19-15. 
Mar.      4 


Text  of  Joint  Resolution  of  Congress. 


20 


PART  II. 
Violations  of  Neutrality — Panama  Canal. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

432 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

1914. 
Dec.    18 

Transmits  statement  from  the  British  Minister  in 
Panama  regarding  reported  violation  of  neutrality 
of  Panama  Canal  by  British  ships. 

23 

The    German    Ambassador    to    the 

Dec.    21 

Refers  to  desire  of  British  steamers  Mallina  and  Tre- 

24 

Counselor. 

meadow,  British  tenders,  desiring  coal  and  right  to 
sail,  and  says  case  seeme   dentical  with  German 
S.  S.  Locksun. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 

Dec.    23 

Says  Department  is  giying  attention  to  Embassy's 

24 

Ambassador. 

note  regarding  matter  of  yiolation   of   Panama 
Canal  Zone  neutrality. 

The  Counselor  to  the  German  Ambas- 

Dec.   23 

Says  the  British  steamships  Mallina  and  Tremeadow 

24 

sador. 

are  considered  by  the  Canal  Zone  authorities  as 
coming  under  Rule  2  of  Proclamalion  of  Nov.  13. 

448 

The  British  .Embassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

Dec.    25 
1915. 

Transmits  a  further  report  from  the  British  Minister 
at  Panama  regarding  violation  of  neutrality  of 
Panama  Canal  Zone. 

25 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the 

Jan.       2 

Acknowledges  above  note  and  says  it  will  receive 

25 

British  Ambassador. 

the  Department's  attentive  consideration.together 
with  prewous  correspondence  on  the  subject. 

No. 


371 


1133 


J.  A. 
2985 


LIST  OF  PAPEBS. 

PART   III. 

Violations  of  Neutrality  by  Belligerent  Warships. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Coun- 
Belor. 

Tlie  Gorman  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 


The  Acting  Secretary  ot"  State  to  the 
British  Ambaiwador. 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the 
German  Ambassador. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German 
Ambassador. 


The  BritLsh  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Ambassador. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary ot  Slate. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 


Date. 

1914 
Sept. 

24 

Oct. 

21 

Oct. 

31 

Nov. 

2 

Nov. 

23 

Dec. 

15 

Dec. 

24 

1915. 

Mar.  24 

1 

Mar. 

o- 

Mar. 

29 

Apr. 

5 

Subject. 


Page. 


Says  British  ships  have  been  instructed  not  to  re- 
quest 8uppli<«  from  New  York. 

Says  Embassy  is  advised  that  British  warship  Essfx 
is  receiving  supplies  and  asks  that  investigation 
be  made. 

Refers  to  conduct  of  the  Italian  steam.''hip  Amisla 
and  asks  that  an  effort  be  made  to  prevent  nuntral 
ships  from  leaving  American  ports  with  supplies 
for  enemy. 

Says  destination  of  Italian  steamship  Amista  will  be 
investigated,  and  states  in  this  connection  that 
careful  investitjation  is  made  of  every  suspicious 
case  of  vessels  leaving  American  ports. 

Says  further  investigation  will  be  made  if  Embassy 
can  supply  evidence  regarding  the  furnishing  of 
supplies  to  the  British  cruiser  Essex. 

Transmits  memorandum  from  German  Government 
on  subject  of  the  delivery  of  coal  to  warslxips  of 
belUgerent  States. 

Acknowledges  above  memorandum  and  defines 
policy  of  the  United  States  relative  to  the  deliv- 
ery of  coal  and  other  necessaries  to  warships  of 
belligerent  States. 

Says  British  ships  have  been  instructed  to  strictly 
observe  United  States  neutrality  regulations. 

Refers  to  conduct  of  the  British  cruisers  Bellcrophon 
and  Rainbow;  asks  that  investigation  be  made 
and  uistructions  given  to  prevent  future  viola- 
tions. 

Acknowledges  above  and  says  matter  will  be 
brought  to  the  attention  of  his  Government. 

Sends  e.\tract  from  letter  of  Admii-al  in  command  of 
North  American  station  regarding  provisioning, 
etc.,  of  British  ships. 


29 
29 

29 

30 

.30 
31 
31 

33 
33 

33 
33 


PART  IV. 

Defensive  Armament  and  the  Right  of  Departure  from  Neutral  Ports  of  Belligerent  Merchant 

Ships  to  Arm  at  Sea. 


252 
259 
2G4 


28'J 


302 


The  British  Charge  to  the  Secretary 
of  State. 

The  British  Charge  to  the  Secretary 
of  State. 

The  British  Charg^  to  the  Secretary 
of  State'. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Charg6. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Charg^. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Ambassador. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State. 

Memorandum  from  the  Biiti-sh  Em- 


Memorandum  from  the  British  Em- 
bassy. 


Memorandum  from  the  British  Em- 
bassy. 


1914. 
Aug.      4 


Aug.  9 

Aug.  12 

Aug.  19 

Axig.  20 

Aug.  25 

A\ig.  29 

Sept.  4 

Sept.  7 

Sept.  9 

Sept.  9 


Communicates  ^'iew8  of  British  Government  rela- 
tive to  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  in  neutral 
waters. 

Transmits  further  communication  explaining  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  British  Govemmeat  relative  to 
the  question  of  armed  merchantmen. 

Says  British  Go.ernment  has  communicated  to 
practicilly  all  netitral  countries  information  simi- 
lar to  above. 

Acknowledges  communic-ations  relative  to  qiiestion 
of  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  in  neutral  waters 
and  defines  attitude  of  United  States  relative 
thereto. 

.Vclcnowledges  Embassy's  259  and  says  Department's 
note  of  19th  expresses  \'iews  on  siibject  of  arme^l 
mcrch.intmen. 

Refers  to  pre\dous  correspondence  on  subject  of 
armed  merchantmen,  and  says  British  merchant 
vessels  are  armed  only  for  defense. 

Acknowledges  receipt  of  above  note. 

Says  instructions  have  been  given  for  the  British 
ship  Merrion  to  land  her  guns,  British  ship 
Adric.'ic  having  already  sailed. 

Savs  British  ship  Adriatic  which  left  New  York 
September  3  is  on  a  peaceful  commercial  \  oyage 
and  armed  solely  for  defensive  purposes. 

Refers  to  Germ.m  policy  of  arming  merchant  ships, 
and  says  if  I'nited  States  takes  \-icw  that  British 
merchant  shii)3  shoi'.ld  not  carry  defensive  arma- 
ment trade  of  two  countries  m.iy  Ki-lter. 

States  xmavoidalde  injury  may  ensue  if  Briti.sh 
merchant  ve.s.«ols  are  not  permitted  purely  de- 
fensive armament. 


37 
37 
38 
38 

40 

41 

41 
41 

42 

42 

43 


LIST    f>F    PAPERS. 

PART  IV— Continuod. 


Defensive  Armament  and  the  Right  of  Departure  from  Neutral  Ports  of  Belligerent  Merchant 

Ships  to  Arm  at  Sea — Continued. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

The  Acting  Sncretary  of  State  to  tha 
German  Ambassador. 

Tho  ActiiiL;  .Socretary  of  State  ti)  the 

B ri tish  ,\  in ba.ssador , 
Tlio  .\oting  Secretary  of  State  t-)  the 

French  Aml)as.«ad<)r. 
Tlie  Acting  Secretary  of  State  t.)  tho 

Japanese  Amba.ssador. 
The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  tho 

Belgian  Minister. 
The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  tho 

British  Ambassador. 

The  SecnHary  of  State  to  .•Vrabaasador 
Gerard. 

.\rabassador  Gerard  to  tha  Secretary 
of  State  (telegram). 

The   -Acting   Secretary   of   State    tJ 
-Embassador  Gerard  "(telegram). 

1914. 
Sept.    19 

Sept.    10 
Sept.    19 
Sept.    19 
Sept.   19 
Sept.   26 

Sept.   20 

Oct.     ]."i 

Nov.     7 

TransmiUs  copies  of  two  Memoranda  defining  the 
rulM!  which  will  be  followed  in  cases  involving 
stiitiiH  of  armed  merchant  vessels  visiting  ports  of 
the  United  States. 

Same  as  above 

43 
43 

Do 

43 

D.) 

43 

Do 

43 

TjOO 
11:! 

Refers  to  Embassy's  August  4  and  says  Department 

has  published  a  statement  on  subject  of  armed 

mercliautmon. 
Transmits  copies  of  Memoranda  on  subject  of  armed 

merc'hant  ships  with  instiiictions  to  communicate 

to  German  Government. 
Comm\inicate.s  views  of  German   Government  on 

subject  of  armed  merchant  ships  visiting  neutral 

waters. 
Says  De])artment  dissents  from  view  of  German 

(lovernraent  relative  to  treatment  to  lie  accorded 

to  armed  merchant  vessels  in  neutral  ports. 

44 
45 
45 
45 

PART  V. 
Internment  of  the  German  Ships  Geier  and  Locksun. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  British  Amba.'isador  to  the  Sec- 
rotary  of  State. 


The  Japanese  Ambassador  to  the 
Counselor. 

The  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  tbe  Secretary  of  State. 

The  .\cting  Secretary  of  State  to 
Ambas.sador  Guthrie. 

The  Counselor  to  the  German  Am- 
bassador. 

The  Counselor  to  the  Japanese  Am- 

biissador. 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  tho 
British  Ambassador. 

The  Counselor  to  the  German  Ambas- 
sador. 


Tho  German  .Embassador  to  the 
Counselor  of  the  Department. 

The  German  .\nibiissador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  Slate. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German 
Ambas.sador. 

The  Counselor  of  the  Department  to 
the  German  Aml)aasador. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the 
Secretary  01  State. 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the 
German  Ambassador. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German 
Ambafwador. 


Date. 


1914. 
Oct.     28 

Oct. 

28 

Oct. 

28 

Oct. 

30 

Oct. 

30 

Oct. 

30 

Oct. 

30 

Nov. 

7 

Nov. 

11 

Nov. 

11 

Nov. 

12 

Nov. 

16 

Nov. 

21 

Nov. 

27 

Dec. 

11 

Subject. 


Requests  that  German  warship  frfiV/-,  undergoing  re- 
pairs at  Honolulu,  be  interned  and  suggesl.'i  there  is 
f round  fur  detaining  the  (ierman  coal-laden  ship 
lOcksim  at  Honolidu  for  intiuiry. 
Reguests  further  information  regarding  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  Oder. 
Forwards  report  on  the  condition  of  the  Geicr 

States  that  captain  of  the  Gcici-  has  been  notified  that 
repairs  must  be  made  within  definite  time  or  ves- 
sel will  be  interned. 

Reviews  facts  concerning  the  Geier  and  states  the 
period  that  has  been  fixed  for  the  completion  of 
repairs. 

States  that  the  Cierman  .Embassador  has  been  in- 
formed of  Ciovernmont's  intention  to  fix  delinile 
period  within  which  repairs  of  the  Geier  should  be 
completed. 

Reviews  the  status  of  the  Geier  and  states  that  in- 
structions have  been  i.ssued  to  detain  the  Locksun 
pending  an  investigation. 

States  that  the  Locksun  may  reasonably  be  consid- 
ered a  tender  to  the  Gcicr  and  that  "the  Govern- 
ment has  taken  stejjs  to  have  her  interned  if  she 
does  not  leave  immediately. 

Discusses  the  detention  of  the  Locksun  and  inquires 
on  which  regulati(m  it  is  ba.sed. 

Draws  attention  to  2  ollicers  of  tho  Geier  who  have 
been  interned  in  the  United  States. 

Reports  the  internment  of  the  Geier  and  Locksun 

States  the  principle  on  which  the  Locksun  was  in- 
terned. 

Protests  against  internment  of  German  steamship 
Locksun,  and  compares  her  status  with  that  of 
the  tug  Dahill.  which  he  says  carried  supplies  to 
the  Hriti<h  ship  Essex. 

Says  Department  considers  officers  and  orderlies 
part  ot  the  comi)leraent  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  and 
can  not  rele;ise  them  as  requested. 

Says  Department  must  adhere  to  its  decision  regard- 
ing Locksun.  Saysif  Embas.sy  hsis  evidence  that 
the  tug  Dahell  supplied  British  ship  Essex, 
Department  would  be  glad  to  receive  it. 


Page. 


49 

49 
49 
50 

50 

50 

51 
51 

51 
52 
52 
52 
53 

53 
54 


UST   OF   PAPERS. 

PART  VI. 


Questions    Relating   to   Neutrality — Correspondence   between    the   Secretary   of   State    and   the 
Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 


No. 


From  and  to  whom. 


Senator  Stone  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Senator 
Stone. 


Date. 


1915. 
Jan.       I 


Jan.     20 


Subject. 


Refers  to  complaints  that  the  United  States  has 
shown  partiality  to  AUieil  nowers  as  against  Ger- 
many and  Austria,  and  asKs  to  1)6  informed  re- 
garding various  points  on  which  complaints  are 
based. 

Transmits  reply  to  above  and  advises  him  relative  to 
the  various  points  of  complaint. 


PART  VII. 
Transmission  of  Mail  of  American  Diplomatic  and  Consular  Officers. 


No. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Penfield  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page  (telegi-am). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Gerard  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Sharp. 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Guthrie  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Morgenthau  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Vopicka  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Sharp  (^ telegram). 

The  Secretary  o.f  State  to  Ambassador 
Penfield  (telegram). 


Date. 


1914. 
Nov.  25 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

25 

1915. 
Apr.  23 

May    20 


Subject. 


Submits  for  approval  of  Austrian  Government  pro- 
posed regulations  for  transmission  of  mail  of 
American  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  in 
belligerent  territory. 

Same  as  above 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 


Transmits  Department's  regulations  for  the  trans- 
mission of  diplomatic  and  consular  correspond- 
ence. 

Says  on  account  of  Austria's  prompt  acquiescence  in 
earlier  proposal  Department's  Apr.  23  was  not  sent 
to  Vienna. 


PART  VIII. 
Censorship  of  Telegrams  Transmitted  by  Cable  and  Wireless. 


No. 


450 


330 


From  and  to  whom. 


Executive  Order 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Executive  Order 


Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to 
Ambassador  Page  (telegram). 


Date. 

igi-i 
Aug. 
Aug. 

. 
5 
15 

Aug. 

22 

Aug. 

24 

Aug. 

27 

Sept. 

2 

Sept. 

5 

Sept. 

10 

Sept. 

19 

Sept. 

24 

Sept. 

26 

Subject. 


Regulations  regarding  radio  stations 

Says  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  protests  against 

cable  censorship  and  in.stru(ts  him  to  endeavor 

to  secure  modihcations  of  restrict  ions. 
Instructs    Embassy    to    make    representations    to 

Foreign  Office  looking  to  removal  of  embargo  on 

cable  repetitions  and  coiTections. 
Transmits   note   from    Urilish   Foreign    Office   on 

subject  of  messages  passing  over  Atlantic  cables. 
Asks  that  all   foreign  missions    be    advised   that 

liritish  censor  regulations  allow  only  diplomatic 

messages  to  go  in  cipher. 
Instructs  Embassy  to  again  bring  matter  of  Western 

Union  Telegraph  Co.  protest  to  attention  of  I'"oreign 

Office  and  to  seek  modification  of  censorship. 
Relates  to  the  takin"  over  by  the  United  States 

of  high-powered  radio  stations. 
Transmits  reply  of  Foreign  Office  to  protest  against 

British  censorship  of  cable  mesfiiges. 
Says  Foreign  OUiie  states  that  instructions  have 

been  given  to  interfere  as  little  as  possible  with 

cable  communication. 
Says  Hritish  Foreign  Office  has  sent  memorandum 

to  Ambassiidor  Page  regarding  censorship  of  cables. 
Instructed  to  inform  British  Foreign  Office  that 

Department  deems  it  very  desirable  that  sup- 

pre.s.<<ion   of   harmless   commercial    messages    be 

stopped. 


LIST  OF  PAPEES. 

PART  VIII— Continued. 
Censorship  of  Telegrams  Transmitted  by  Cable  and  Wireless — Continued. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page  ( tclpiiram). 
Amba.ssafior  Pa^c  to  the  Secretary  of 

Slate  (telegram). 
Aml)a.ssa(lor  Pago  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Ambassador  I'age  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (tclojiram). 
The   Acting   Secretary   of   State   to 

Ambassador  Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Minister  Stovall  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

The   Acting   Secretary   of   State   to 

Minister  Slovall  (telegram). 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page  (telegram). 
Minister  Stovall  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Memorandnm  from  the  Legation  of 
Switzerland. 


Memorandnm    t' 
Switzerland. 


the    Legation    of 


The   Acting   Secretary   of   State   to 
Ambassador  Page  (telegram). 

The   Acting   Secretary   of   State   to 

Ambassador  Ilerrick  (tologram). 
The   Acting   Secretary   of   Slate   to 

Minister  Stovall. 
Ambas.'iador  Herrick  to  the  Secretary 

of  State. 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Slate  (telegram). 
Ambassador  ^Villard  to  tlie  Secretary 

of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassa- 
dor Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambas- 
sador Page  (telegram). 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambas- 
sador Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambas- 
sador Sharp  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Slate  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of   State   to  Ambas- 
sador Page  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambas- 
sador Page. 


Date. 


1914. 
Oct.   1 

Oct. 

2 

Oct. 

5 

Oct. 

13 

Oct. 

14 

Oct. 

2,3 

Oct. 

30 

Nov. 

5 

Nov. 

6 

Nov. 

9 

Nov. 

10 

Nov. 

10 

Nov. 

12 

Nov. 

12 

Nov. 

20 

Nov. 

20 

Nov. 

20 

Nov. 

20 

Nov. 

22 

Nov. 

25 

Nov. 

27 

Nov. 

27 

Dec. 

1 

Dec. 

2 

Dec. 

2 

Dec. 

2 

Dec. 

3 

Dec. 

4 

Dec. 

4 

Subject. 


Dec.  7 

Dec.  7 

Dec.  11 

Dec.  11 


Asks  as  to  rcgiilationa  regarding  cable  address  and 

signal nre  on  telegrams  to  London  and  beyond. 
Replies  to  above,  and  says  no  change  in  regulations. 

Says  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  taken  up  matter  of  cable 
cc'nsorship  with  (Ihief  Censor. 

Reports  relative  to  effort  of  British  Foreign  Office 
to  di.scontinne  wnppro.ssion  of  commercial  cables. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  urge  upon  Foreign  Office  neces- 
sity of  notifying  senders  of  nondelivery  of  stopped 
telegrams. 

Transmits  note  from  Foreign  Office  giving  reasons  for 
holding  up  telegrams  from  American  commander 
at  Tientsin. 

Says  Foreign  Office  states  that  senders  aa  a  nile  are 
not  advised  of  stoppage  of  messages. 

Reports  relative  to  protest  of  Swiss  bankers  against 
stoppage  of  telegrams  to  United  States  concerning 
money  transfers  and  grain. 

Refers  to  above,  and  says  matter  shovdd  be  taken  up 
by  Swiss  Ministers  at  London  and  Paris. 

Reports  protest  of  American  Trade  Agency  at  Rome 
against  iulerference  with    -able  communications. 

Refers  to  above,  and  says  Department  has  received 
few  complaints  recently. 

Transmits  communication  from  Swiss  Government 
protesting  against  censorship  of  telegram  from 
Switzerland  to  United  States. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  present  to  Foreign  Office  pro- 
test of  Danish  firms  against  censorship  with  view 
to  amelioration. 

Transmits  telegram  from  President  of  Swiss  Confed- 
eration protesting  against  censorship  of  commer- 
cial telegrams. 

Says  American  Ambassadors  at  London  and  Paris 
have  been  instructed  to  confer  with  Swiss  Min- 
isters regarding  cable  censorship. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  inform  Foreign  Office  that  pro- 
tests against  censorship  increase  daily  and  to 
urge  amendment  of  regulations. 

Same,  mutatis  mutandis,  as  above 

Informs  him  of  above  action 

Reports  regarding  French  cable  regulations 

Says  he  has  made  joint  protest  with  Swiss  Minister 
to  Foreign  Office  regarding  cable  censorship. 

Reports  continued  complaints  from  American  com- 
mercial companies  regardins;  cable  censorship. 

Says  Consul  General  at  Barcelona  reports  serious  in- 
terference with  cotton  shipments  on  account  of 
British  cable  censorship. 

Says  Embassy  at  London  has  been  instructed  to  take 
up  matter  of  cable  censorship  with  British  For- 
eign Office. 

Says  Italian  Government  asks  cooperation  of  United 
States  to  stop  interference  with  cable  communi- 
cation. 

Savs  Embassy  at  London  has  been  instructed  to  take 
up  matter  of  interference  with  cables  regarding 
cotton  shipments  to  Spain. 

Says  Foreign  Office  states  that  investigation  will  be 
made  of  all  specific  complaints  of  stopped  tele- 
grams. 

Refers  to  above,  and  says  the  demand  for  specific 
instances  seems  useless.  Thinks  matter  can  be 
relieved  by  amendment  of  censorship  regulations 
only. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  cooperate  with  Italian  col- 
leagues in  matter  of  cable  censorship. 

Says  German  Government  asks  that  United  States 
take  steps  to  secure  unhampered  transmission  of 
cotton  messages.  . 

Instructs  Embassy' to  take  up  with  Foreign  Office 
matter  of  complaints  as  to  delayed  cable  messages 
reported  by  Embassy  at  Rome. 

Says  Sir  Edward  Grey  will  arrange  conference  to  dis- 
cuss with  Chief  Censor  matter  of  cable  censorship. 

Refers  to  complaints  of  New  Orleans  Cotton  Ex- 
change against  action  of  British  and  French  cen- 
sors, and  says  Exchange  recommends  use  of  cotton 
codes. 

Refers  to  above,  and  says  Department  hopes  that 
representations  to  Foreign  Office  wiU  result  in 
granting  relief. 


Page. 


74 
74 

75 
75 
75 

75 

76 
76 

76 
76 
76 

77 

78 

78 

78 

78 

78 
79 
79 
79 
79 
80 

80 

80 

80 
81 
81 

81 

82 

82 

82 
82 

83 


UST   OK    PAPERS. 

PART  VIII— Contiiiur.I. 
Censorship  of  Telegrams  Transmitted  by  Cable  and  Wireless — Continued. 


No. 


584 


904 


1028 


From  and  to  whom. 


AmbiuwaJor  Page  to  tho  Secretary  of 
Statxj  (telegram). 


AmbaBsador  Pago  to  tho  Secretary'  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassa- 
dor Page  (telegram). 

.\mba.«sador  Pago  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  tho  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

The  Hrili.sh  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State. 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Min- 
ister Reinsch  (telegram). 


Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassa- 
dor Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

Tho  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassa- 
dor Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Willard  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Pago  (telegram). 

Consul  General  Thackara  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 

The  Counselor  to  the  British  Ambas- 
sador. 

Memorandum  from  the  British  Em- 


Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 


Ambassador  Pago  to  tho  Secretary  of 
State. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 


Date. 


1914. 
Dec.  11 

J)ec. 

14 

Dec. 

15 

Dec. 

17 

Dec. 

17 

Dec. 

18 

Dec. 

21 

Dec. 

22 

Dec. 

22 

Dec. 

20 

1915. 
Jan.   2 

Jan.  4 

Jan.  5 

Jan.  8 

Jan.  12 

Jan.  16 

Jan.  IG 

Jan.  23 

Jan.  25 

Jan.  28 

Feb.  3 

Feb.  3 

Feb.  10 

Feb.  12 

Feb.  15 

Feb.  16 

Feb.  19 

Feb.  24 

Mar.  10 

Mar.  ](> 


Subject. 


I  Page. 


Reports  a  conference  which  h<:  had  wilh  th<>  Brit- 
Lsh  Minisler  for  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  head  cen- 
sor regarding  complaints  against  censorship  of 
commercial  cables. 

Reports  that  .\merican  trade  in  Italy  is  suffering  on 
account  of  cable  censorship.  Says  Italian  Gov- 
ernment asks  United  States  cooperation. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  call  again  to  attention  of  For- 
eign Office  action  of  censors  in  holding  up  com- 
mtTcial  cables. 

Says  British  Government  approves  use  of  Meyers 
cotton  code. 

Says  he  has  taken  up  matter  of  cable  censorship  with 
Danish  and  Swu<s  Ministers  and  SpanLih  and 
Italian  Amba-s-tadors. 

Transmits  memorandum  from  British  Foreign  Office 
regarding  use  of  codes  in  foreign  telegrams. 

Advises  Department  regarding  an  arrangement  for 
tho  passing  of  commercial  cables. 

Says  no  cables  to  United  States  were  stopped  on  21st, 
but  two  from  United  States  were  stopped  because 
of  contents. 

Inform  Foreign  Office  that  Barcelona  and  Philip- 
pine firms  protest  against  censorship  of  telegrams. 
Urge  action. 

Says  telegram  from  Ameri<an  Minister  at  Peking  to 
Consul  General  at  Hongkong  was  stopped  because 
it  was  in  cipher. 

Informs  him  of  above.  Says  British  regulations  pro- 
vide that  only  messages  between  diplomatic  mis- 
sions and  Government  at  Washington  may  go  in 
cipher. 

Says  British  Government  requests  that  message 
stopped  by  censor  in  Florida  be  released  and  for- 
warded. 

Refers  to  above.  Says  message  is  partly  in  code. 
If  put  in  plain  language  will  be  forwarded. 

Says  stopping  of  cables  continues.  Advises  that 
telegraphic  companies  exclude  all  technical  words. 

Inform  Foreign  Office  that  Department  insists  that 
notification  bo  given  of  stopped  messages. 

Gives  names  of  codes  allowed  for  messages  over 
French  cable  lines. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  investigate  and  protest  to 
Foreign  Office  if  Spanish  censors  are  interfering 
with  messages  between  United  States  and  Spain. 

Reports  that  French  Foreign  Office  has  given  in- 
structions for  the  passing  of  commercial  cables 
ivith  least  possible  delay. 

Informs  Embassy  of  above  action,  and  says  if  it 
seems  desirable,  to  urge  British  Government  to 
take  similar  steps. 

Reports  British  regiilations  regarding  use  of  Meyers 
Atlantic  Cotton  Code. 

Transmits  report  of  British  censor  gi\dng  average 
number  of  telegrams  stopped  in  three  days. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  seek  an  arrangement  whereby 
telegrams  passing  through  French  territory  shall 
not  be  interfered  with  by  British  authorities. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  take  up  with  Foreign  Office 
matter  of  allowing  code  messages  to  South  Ameri- 
can countries  and  to  urge  early  action. 

Transmits  French  code  regulations 


Says  Foreign  Office  reports  that  out  of  60  or  70  tele- 
grams from  United  States  in  November  and  De- 
cember only  3  were  stopped. 

Says  he  would  like  to  discuss  with  Ambassador  mat- 
ter of  interruption  of  commercial  cablegrams  by 
British  censors. 

Advises  Department  of  report  of  British  Govern- 
ment relative  to  alleged  interference  with  com- 
mercial cablegrams  by  British  censors. 

Says  Foreign  Office  states  that  instructions  were 
given  to  pass  telegrams  to  South  American  c'oun- 
tries  without  censoring,  and  there  must  be  a  mis- 
take about  alleged  stoppage. 

Transmits  memorandum  from  British  Foreign  Office 
concerning  certain  commercial  telegrams  sent 
through  Department  of  State  considered  detrimen- 
tal to  British  interests. 

Advises  Kmbaissv  as  to  form  of  reply  which  Dejiart- 
mont  will  send  to  requests  for  official  transmission 
of  private  cables. 


LIST   OF   PAPERS. 

PART  VIII— Continued. 
Censorship  of  Telegrams  Transmitted  by  Cable  and  Wireless — Coutimied. 


From  and  to  ■whom. 


A  mil  assail  I II'  I'ag"  lo  tlie  iSocretary  of 

.Stato. 
Ambassador  Sliarp  (« the  Secretary  of 

Stato. 
Amiiassador  Pa^e  to  the  Secretary  of 

iSlato  (telotrram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Suite  (telegram). 

Ainba,«sador  Page  to  the  Secretary'  of 

State  (telegram). 


Date. 


Mar. 

21 

Mar. 

21 

Mar. 

2(> 

May 

« 

May 

13 

May 

27 

Juno 

3 

Subject. 


Transmit,'<  note  from  Foreign  OfTico  regarding  Wost,- 
orn  Union  Oo.'s  protest  against  British  consorsliip. 

Say.s  French  (tovornment  considers  use  of  one  cotton 
code  (|uite  sufficient. 

Transmits  Hrilish  Foreign  OfSce  memorandum  on 
svibject  of  cablegram  censorshii). 

Instructs  Eml)assy  to  present  all  stopped  messages 
to  Foreign  Office  and  ask  to  bo  given  reason  for 
stoppage. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  bring  matter  of  delayed  South 
American  cable  to  attention  of  I'^oreign  Office  and 
urge  action. 

Says  Foreign  Office  ha.s  instructerl  censors  to  T)ass 
telegrams  to  South  American  countries  and  tliinks 
there  will  be  no  further  trouble. 

Saya  reported  delayed  raos.-;age  to  South  America 
can  not  bo  traced.  Advi.ses  u.so  of  cable  route 
which  does  not  touch  Great  Britain  or  her  pos- 
sessions. 


Page. 

92 
92 
92 
93 

93 

94 

9-1 


PART  IX. 
Belgian  Relief. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  Stato  to  Ambassador 
Gerard  (telegram). 

Minister  Wliitlock  to  the  Secretary 

of  Stato  (telegram). 
The  Acting   Secretary   of    State   to 
Ambassador  Page  (telegram). 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  Stato  to 
Jlinister  ^\^litlock  (telegi'am). 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to 
Minister  Wlutlock  (tele,gi'am). 

Andiassador  Pago  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  Statj  to 
Amoassador  Herrick  (telegram). 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to 
Ambassador  Gerard  (telegramj. 


Ambassador  Herrick  to  the  Secretary 

of  Stato  (telegram). 
The   Actin"  SecreUiry   of   State   to 
Ambassador  Gerard  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  (telegi-am). 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German 
Ambassador. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

Consul  General  Skinner  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Consul  Gen- 
eral Skinner. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 
of  Stato  (telegram). 

Memorandum  to  the  German  Em- 
bassy. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 
of  Stote. 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secrtjtary  of 
State  (telegram). 


Date. 


1914. 

Oct.       7 


Oct.  IG 

Oct.  19 

Oct.  19 

Oct.  20 

Oct.  26 

Oct.  31 

Nov.  7 

Nov.  11 

Nov.  20 

Nov.  23 


Dec. 

1 

Dec. 

4 

Dec. 

5 

Dec. 

8 

Dec. 

10 

Dec. 

11 

Dec. 

18 

Dec. 

28 

Dec. 

28 

Subject. 


Instructed  to  obtain  from  German  Government 
definite  assurance  regarding  work  of  Belgian  re- 
lief committee. 

Reports  regarding  plan  for  supplying  food  to  the 
jtoor  of  Brussels  and  asks  Department's  approval. 

Says  German  Government  approves  plan  of  Belgian 
relief  committee.  Instructs  Embassy  to  proceed 
on  lines  of  October  6. 

Says  German  Government  approves  plan  to  import 
foodstuffs  for  Belgiimi  and  Embassy  at  London  has 
been  advised. 

Says  Department  approves  action  reported  in  tele- 
gram of  October  16. 

Says  Embassy  has  assiu'ance  of  German  commander 
that  foodstiiffs  sent  by  Commission  will  not  be 
confiscated . 

Instructed  to  ascertain  if  France  will  object  to  transit 
of  foodstuffs  shipped  by  Relief  Commission  to 
Belgium. 

Instructed  to  ascertain  if  Germany  will  permit  slu]i- 
ment  of  food  from  United  States  to  IloUand  for 
Belgium  and  whether  there  is  an  embargo  on 
second-hand  clotliing. 

Says  French  Government  does  not  object  to  transit 
of  foodstuffs  through  Netherlands  to  Belgium. 

Instructed  to  obtain  safe  passage  of  British  and  neu- 
tral ships  with  supplies  for  Belgium  and  permis- 
sion for  American  automobiles  to  distribute  food. 

Saya  German  Government  will  not  interfere  with 
neutral  ships  carrying  food  for  Belgiimi,  but  un- 
neutral ships  must  have  proper  certificate  in- 
dorsed by  German  Ambassador  at  Washington. 

Advises  him  as  to  above,  and  asks  if  Embassy  con- 
curs in  proposal. 

Repli?a  to  above,  and  says  proposal  meets  with  his 
approval. 

Says  he  has  instructed  German  Consul  to  issue  cer- 
tificates for  safe  conduct  to  unneutral  ships  carry- 
ing food  for  Belgium. 

Says  Belgium  Relief  Commission  asks  if  United 
States  will  furnish  naval  sliips  for  carrjdng  sup- 
plies. 

Saya  Navy  Department  states  that  there  are  not 
suitable  ships  available  for  use  of  Belgian  Relief 
Commission. 

Says  passes  have  been  issued  by  German  authorities 
to  American  automobiles  used  to  distribute  food. 

Extends  expressions  of  appreciation  of  Belgian  Re- 
lief Commission  for  safe  conduct  of  ships. 

Transmit?  note  from  German  Foreign  Office  relative 
to  wording  of  certificates  for  unneutral  ships 
carrj  iiig  fnod  for  Belgians. 

Says  reports  shoidd  be  sent  to  British  Ambassador 
fegarding  idl  Belgian  relief  ships. 


Page. 

97 

97 
98 

98 

98 
98 

98 

99 

99 
99 

99 

99 
100 
100 

100 

100 

101 
101 
101 

102 


No. 


184 


399 

187 


74 

195 
196 

34 

45 
46 

47 

53 


55 
215 


LIST  OP  PAPERS. 

PART  IX— Continued. 
Belgian  Relief — Continued. 


From  and  tfi  whom. 


Minister  Van  Dyke  to  tho  Secretary 
ol  State  (tel^ram). 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 

of  State. 
Minister  Van  Dvke  to  the  Secretary 

of  State. 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Gerard  (telc^am). 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 

of  State  (telegram"). 
Tlio  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Van  Dyke  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

\'an  Dyke  (telegram). 
Minister  Van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary 

of  State. 
Minister  Van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary 

of  State. 


Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

Minister  WTiitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  (telegram) . 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 
Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Jlinister 
Whitlock. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 
Whitlock. 

Minister  Van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary 
of  State. 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
SUte. 

Memorandum  to  the  German   Em- 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 


Date. 

1 
1914. 
Doc.    29 

1915. 
Jan.      2 

Jan. 

2 

Jan. 

4 

Jan. 

13 

Jan. 

17 

Jan. 

21 

Jan. 

21 

Jan. 

22 

Jan. 

22 

Jan. 

2G 

Jan. 

28 

Jan. 

28 

Jan. 

28 

Jan. 

28 

Feb. 

3 

Feb. 

10 

Feb. 

18 

Feb. 

23 

Mar. 

3 

Mar. 

10 

Mar. 

11 

Apr. 

3 

Subject. 


Says  foodstuffs  for  Limburg  taxed  by  German  com- 
mander. 

Says  Gorman  Governor  General  in  Belgium  has  issued 
Ofdcis  forbidding  requisition  of  foodstuffs  for  Bel- 
gians. 

Transmits  note  from  Foreign  Office  stating  that  food- 
stuffs for  Belgian  relief  will  not  be  requisitioned. 

Says  tax  imposed  on  flour  at  Limburg  removed  and 
taxes  collected  refunded. 

Instructed  to  ascertain  from  German  Foreign  Office 
if  commander  at  Limburg  is  exacting  tax  on  food- 
stuffs. 

Says  Minister  Van  Dyke  reports  removal  of  tax  at 
Limbur"  and  that  investigation  will  be  dropped. 

Instructed  to  report  regarding  removal  of  tax  on 
foodstuffsat  Limburg. 

Instructed  to  confirm  report  from  Berlin  relative  to 
removal  of  tax  on  foodstuffs  at  Limburg. 

Reports  regarding  removal  of  tax  on  foodstuffs  at 
Limburg. 

Says  Netherlands  Government  has  given  Commission 
for  Relief  in  Belgium  free  use  of  railways,  postal 
and  telegraphic  ser\dce,  and  exemption  from  duty 
of  automobiles. 

Transmits  copy  of  note  from  German  authorities  at 
Brussels  regarding  exemption  of  foodstuffs  from 
requisition. 

Reports  satisfactory  adjustment  of  matter  of  customs 
duties  on  foodstuffs  for  Belgium. 

Refers  to  the  above,  and  says  city  of  Antwerp  also 
included. 

Saya  German  authoritiea  state  that  cattle  and  their 
food  also  exempt  from  military  requisition. 

Says  German  Government  state  that  foodstuffs  from 
United  States  to  Belgium  will  not  be  used  for  mili- 
tary or  naval  piu-poses. 

Says  German  authorities  at  Maubeuge  will  not  requi- 
sition foodstuffs  for  Belgian  relief. 

Says  French  Government  has  no  objection  to  ship- 
ment of  Argentine  maize  to  Rotterdam  for  relief  of 
Belgians  and  French  in  territory  controlled  by 
German)^. 

Says  Belgian  Relief  Commission,  Committee  of 
Mercy,  etc.,  advised  of  exemption  of  cattle  and 
their  food  from  military  requisition. 

Says  information  regarding  exemption  of  foodstuffs 
has  been  conveyed  to  Commission  for  Relief  in 
Belgium,  Committee  of  Mercy,  etc. 

Transmits  memorandum  presented  by  the  German 
Minister  at  The  Hague  regarding  freedom  of  ships 
of  Belgian  Relief  Commission. 

Saya  Foreign  Office  states  that  flag  and  markings 
of  Belgian  Relief  Commission  will  be  used  only  on 
ships  carrying  goods  of  commission. 

Advises  him  regarding  reported  British  attitude 
toward  Belgian  relief  work  and  refers  to  assurance 
of  British  Government  relative  to  Commission's 
flag  and  markings. 

Instructed  to  inform  Belgian  Relief  Commission  re- 
garding an  attack  on  one  of  its  vessels  by  a  German 
aeroplane. 


PART  X. 
Attempt  of  German  Ship  Odenwald  to  Sail  Without  Clearance  Papers. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

J.  A. 

240O 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

Tho  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Gorman 
Ambassador. 

1915. 
Apr.      1 

May      3 

Asks  why  clearance  papers  were  not  given  the 
German  steamer  Odrmrald  and  complains  against 
the  reckless  action  of  the  San  Juan  harbor  author- 
ities. 

Submits  statement  of  facts  regarding  the  action  of  the 
German  steamship  Odenwald  a.ad  explains  why  she 
was  refused  clearance  papers. 

Ill 
HI 

UST   OF   PAPERS. 
PART   XI. 

Detention  of  the  American  Merchant  Ship  Seguranca. 


From  and  to  whom. 


Tlie  Secretary  of  State  (o  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

A-ibassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambaseador 
Page  (telegram). 


Date. 


1915 
Apr. 

9 

Apr. 

28 

May 

6 

Subject. 


Instructs  Embassy  to  inform  Foreign  Office  that  the 
Uuiled  Slates,  on  behalf  of  owners  of  steamship 
Serjumncn,  olijccts  to  detent iou  of  vessel. 

Says  Foreign  <)fli<'e  stales  that  Scr/uruucn  has  been 
allowed  to  ])rorced,  all  consignees  ha\ing  agreed 
to  receive  goods  through  Netherlands  Oversea 
Trust. 

Refers  to  above,  and  says  Department  does  not  ob- 
iei-t  to  consignment  of  American  shipments  to 
Netherlands  Oversea  Trust,  but  it  does  object  to 
detention  by  British  Government  of  noncontra- 
band  shipments  until  roconsigned. 


Page. 

117 
117 

117 


PART  XII. 
Detention  of  the  American  Ship  Wico. 


No. 

Fiom  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

191c 

. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  ask  release  of  Amerif-an  sleam- 

121 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Mar. 

20 

ship  ll'iV'o. 

Page  (telegram). 
Tlie  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

121 

Mar. 

20 

Morris  (telegram). 

Says  British  Foreign  Office  will  release  Wico,  but 

121 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Api. 

8 

question  of  oil  cargoes  for  Sweden  will  have  to  be 

State  (telegram). 

reconsidered  if  German  seizures  continue. 
Refers  to  above,  and  sa-N's  question  of  seizures  of 

121 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Apr. 

12 

American  cargoes  bv  Germany  is  matter  to  be  ad- 

Page (telegram). 

justed  by  United  States  and  Germany. 
Transmits  note  from  Foreign  Office  relative  to  seizure 

122 

1412 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 

May 

18 

of  Wico,  and  giving  views  of  British  Govern"ient 
regarding  seizure  of  neutral  vessels. 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for 

May 

16 

Explains  detention  of  American  steamship  Wico... 

122 

Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Page. 

PART  XIII. 
Internment  of  the  German  Ship  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secre- 

1915. 

Mar.    IS 

Transmits  copv  of  note  sent  to  the  German  Ambas- 

tary of  the  Navy. 

sador  regardin^proposed  repairs  to  the  German 
warship  Prinz  Ettel. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German 

Mar.    18 

Says  the  Prinz  Ei'el  will  be  allowed  until  April  7th 
to  coraplete  rejiairs  and  leave  the  territorial  waters 
of  tho  United  States. 

125 

Ambassador. 

Memorandum  to  the  British  Erdbassy . 

Mar.    29 

Says  instructions  have  been  given  for  the  Prinz 
'Eitel  to  observe  the  rule  not  to  leave  port  until  24 
hours  after  the  departure  of  an  enemy  merchant 
ship. 

Exjiresses  appreciation  for  courtesies  accorded  to  the 

125 

J.2578 

The  German  Ambassador  to  tho  Sec- 

Apr.     8 

125 

retary  of  State. 

Prinz  Eitel  while  at  Newport  News. 

PART  XIV. 
Internment  of  the  German  Cruiser  Kronprinz  Wilhelm. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

J.  A. 

2G81 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  Slate. 

The  Secretary  of  Stale  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury. 

1915. 
Apr.    12 

Apr.    21 

Asks  permission  for  the  German  warship  Kronprinz 
Wilhelm  to  land  at  the  Ne^vport  News  shipyard  for 
repairs. 

Transmits  copy  of  note  to  the  German  Ambassador 
relati\'0  to  tho  request  that  permission  bo  given 
to  the  German  warship  Kronprinz  Wilhelm  to 
undergo  repairs  at  Newport  News. 

129 
129 

10 


LIST  OF   PAPERS. 

PART  XV. 
Detention  of  August  Piepenbrink. 


No. 

From  and  to  wliom. 

Date. 

Subject. 

Page. 

Tlio  Scrrotary  of  State  to  Viro  Consul 
lUmily  (lelegrain). 

1914. 
Dec.      7 

Tnstrticts  Consulate  to  ask  relca.se  of  August  Picpeii- 

i:i:5 

briuk  taken  from  American  vessel  on  high  seas  by 

French  cruiser. 

Tlin  SoiTotary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Dec.      7 

Instructs  Erabiussv  to  ask  rele;«*e  of  August  Piepen- 

133 

Sharp  (telegram). 

brink  taken  V)y  P'ronch  cruiser  and  held  at  Kings- 
ton by  British  authorities. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Dec.      7 

Similar  instruction  as  above  sent  to  Embassy  at 

133 

Page. 

1915. 

London. 

.\mba.s,sador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Jan.      4 

Says  Foreign  Office  replying  to  above,  says  Piepen- 

133 

State  (telegram). 

brink  has  not  taken  out  liLs  papers,  is  legally  a 
German  subject,  and  can  not  be  released. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Mar.      2 

Instructs  Embassy  to  inform  Foreign  Office  that 

133 

Page  (telegram). 

Department    considers    Piepenbrink's    removal 
from  an  American  vessel  on  the  high  seas  without 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Mar.      2 

legal  justification  and  to  again  request  his  release. 

Sharp   (telegram). 

Informs  Embassy  of  above  instruction,  cites  prece- 
dents, and  directs  that  Piepenbrink's  immediate 
release  be  requested. 

134 

298 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 
Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

Mar.    12 

Reports  communication  of  above  to  French  Foreign 

Office. 
Says  Foreign  Office  states  that  it  has  been  decided  to 

135 

IIGG 

Apr.      G 

136 

State. 

release  Piepenbrink  as  friendly  act,  while  reserv- 
ing question  of  principle  involved. 

533 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of 

State. 

Apr.    21 

Transmits  Liote  from  French  Foreign  Office  of  same 
tenor  as  above. 

136 

PART  XVI. 
Internment  of  the  German  Prize  Ship  Farn. 


No. 


18 
26 


124 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Ambassador. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British 
Ambassador. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State. 


Date. 


1915. 
Ja:;.     13 


Jan.  17 

Jan.  29 

Feb.  26 

Mar.  13 

Mar.  26 


Subject. 


I  Pago. 


Says  the  vessel  Farn,  captured  from  the  British  and 
fljang  German  flag  entered  port  of  San  Juaa  on 
12lli.     Asks  investigation  ami  detention  of  vessel. 

Refers  to  above  and  says  British  Government  pre- 
sume that  the  United  States  will  instruct  author- 
ities at  San  Juan  to  act  in  conformity  with  Article 
21  of  Hague  Convention. 

Says  instructions  have  been  given  for  the  Farn  to 
leave  port  of  S.xn  Juan  within  24  hours  or  interne. 

Refers  to  above  decision  and  says  British  Govern- 
ment thinks  Article  21,  No.  13,  Hague  Conven- 
tion, should  be  applied  to  vessel. 

Refers  to  above  and  says  British  Government  has 
not  ratified  convention  and  that  United  States 
must  adhere  to  decision  to  interne  the  steamship 
Farn. 

Says  British  Government  would  like  to  know  to 
whom  United  Stxtes  will  turn  over  the  Farn  at 
end  of  war,  and  still  contend  that  vessel  should  be 
released  to  British  owTiers  at  once. 


139 
139 

139 
139 

140 
141 


PART  XVII. 
Non-contraband  Character  of  Hydroaeroplanes. 


No. 


From  and  to  whom. 


German  Ambassador  to  Secretary  of 

State. 
Secretary  of  State  to  German  Am- 

bas.sador. 


Date. 


1915. 
Jan.     19 

Jan.     29 


Subject. 


Makes  protest  against  sale  of  hydroaeroplanes  to 

belligerent  States. 
Says  Department  does  not  consider  aeroplanes  or 

other  aircraft  as  ves.sels  of  war. 


Page. 


145 
145 


LIST   OF   PAPERS. 
PART   XVIII. 

Dual  Nationality. 


11 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Senator 
Lodge. 


Date. 


1915. 
June     9 


Subject. 


Advises  liini  relative  to  etatua  of  citizenship  of  I'go 
Da  Prato,  held  in  Italy  for  military  service. 


Page. 


1-19 


PART  XIX. 
Circular  Instructions  and  Correspondence  Relating  to  the  Issuing  cf  Passports. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  American 

Diplomatic  Officers. 
The  Secretiiry  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Penfield  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassatlor 

Herrick  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Gerard  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page  (London)  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page  (Home)  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Willard  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

\\liitlock  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Droppers  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Van  Dyke  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Schmedeman  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Morris  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Stovall  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  American 

Diplomatic  Officers  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Diplomatic 
and  Consular  Officers. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Sharp  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page,  London  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Page,  Rome  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 

Gerard  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State   to  Minister 

Van  Dyke  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister 

Egan  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  American 

Diplomatic  and  Consular  Officers. 
Passport  Regulations 


Date. 


19M. 

Aug.  1 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Sept.  12 

Dec.  21 

Dec.  30 

1915 

Jan.  7 

Jan.  7 

Jan.  7 

Jan.  7 

Jan.  7 

Jan.  7 

Fob.  8 


Subject. 


.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 
.do. 


Page. 


Instruction  relative  to  the  issuance  of  emergency 
passports  and  the  protection  of  Americans  abroad. 

In.structed  to  advise  Consular  Officers  that  they  may 
issue  emergency  passports. 

Same  as  above 


Says  passports  should  be  issued  to  native  and  natiu-al- 
ized  American  citizens  only.  Department's  au- 
thorization to  be  obtained  in  doubtful  cases. 

Instructions  concerning  the  preparation  of  applica- 
tions for  Departmental  and  emergency  passports 
and  issuance  of  latter. 

Asks  that  passports  for  travel  in  Belgium  be  denied, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity. 

Directs  that  passports  for  Belgium  be  denied  appli- 
cants unless  for  Red  Cross  work,  Belgian  relief,  or 
special  exigency. 

Same  as  above 


.do. 
.do. 
.do. 


Transmits  copy  of  rules  governing  the  granting  and 
issuing  of  passports  in  the  United  States. 


155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 
155 

156 

158 

158 

158 
158 
158 
158 
158 
158 
156 


PART  XX. 
Correspondence  Relating  to  Restraints  on  Commerce. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

The  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs to  Ambassador  Gerard. 


Date. 


1915. 
May    28 

Juno      1 


Subject. 


Page. 


Communicates  reply  of  German  Government  to  De- 
partment's note  of  May  15  protesting  against  Ger- 
man submarine  warfare. 

Informs  Embassy  regarding  investigation  made  by 
the  German  Government  relative  to  the  American 
steamers  Guljlighl  and  Cushing. 


169 
170 


12 


No. 


LIST   OF   PAPEHS. 

PART  XX— Continued. 
Correspondence  Relating  to  Restraints  on  Commerce — Continued. 


From  and  to  whom. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Gerard  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  (ad  interim). 

The  German  MinLstor  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Page  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Gerard  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  (telegram). 

Ambassador  Page  to  the  Secretary  of 
State. 


Date. 


1915 
June 

'  9 

June 

22 

July 

8 

July 

14 

July 

15 

July 

21 

July 

21 

July 

31 

July 

31 

Subject. 


Transmits  note  for  commimi^ation  to  the  German 
Government  regarding  the  adoption  of  measures 
for  the  safeguarding  of  Amcriran  lives  and  ehii)S. 

Transmits  text  of  memorandum  from  British  Foreign 
Office  relative  to  the  detention  of  American  car- 
goes bound  for  neutral  ports. 

Communicates  reply  of  German  Government  to  De- 
partment's note  protesting  against  German  sub- 
marine warfare. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  communicate  to  British  Gov- 
ernment views  of  United  States  regarding  prize- 
court  proceedings. 

Instructs  Embassy  to  protest  against  seizure  by 
British  Government  of  cargo  of  steamship  Ncches 
sailing  from  Rotterdam. 

Transmits  for  communication  to  German  Govern- 
ment reply  to  Foreign  Office  note  of  July  8  rela- 
tive to  Germany's  submarine  policy. 

Transmits  text  of  reply  from  British  _Foreign_ Office 
relative  to  complaints  against  British  restrictions 
on  commerce. 

Transmits  note  from  British  Foreign  Office  gi\'ing 
reasons  for  the  detention  of  the  cargo  of  the  steam- 
ship Neches. 

Transmits  note  from  British  Foreign  Office  regarding 
the  difference  of  views  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  in  the  matter  of  prize-court  pro- 
ceedings. 


Page. 


171 


173 


175 


177 


177 


178 


179 


181 


181 


PART  XXI. 

Destruction   of   American    Merchantman  William    P.  Frye   by   the   German   Ship   Prinz   Eitel 

Friedrich. 


No. 


From  and  to  whom. 


Date. 


Subject. 


Page. 


Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 

of  State  (telegram). 
The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Gerard  (telegram). 


Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  (telegram). 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Gerard  (telegram). 


1915 
June 

'  7 

June 

24 

July 

30 

Aug. 

10 

Transmits  text  of  reply  of  the  German  Government 
in  the  Frye  case. 

Instructed  to  inform  Foreign  Office  that  the  United 
States  objects  to  resorting  to  the  Prize  Court  in 
Frye  case,  and  to  suggest  settlement  by  direct  dip- 
lomatic negotiations. 

Transmits  text  of  note  from  German  Foreign  Office 
setting  forth  views  of  German  Government  in  Frye 
case. 

Transmits  note  for  presentation  to  the  German 
Government  regarding  the  claim  for  reparation 
for  the  sinking  of  the  William  P.  Frye. 


185 
185 

187 
188 


PART  XXII. 
The  Sale  of  Munitions  of  War  to  Belligerents. 


No. 

From  and  to  whom. 

Date. 

Subject.                                         Page. 

1915. 

The  Austro-Himgarian  Minister  for 

June    29 

Asks  that  stei)S  l)e  taken  regarding  the  traffic  in  |       193 

Foreign     Affairs     to     Ambassador 

munitions  of  war  carried  on  between  the  United 

Penfield. 

States  and  the  countries  at  w;ir  w.ith  Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary. 

846 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador 
Penfield. 

Aug.    12 

Instructed    to   inform    Austro-Hungarian   Govern- 
ment relative  to  the  attitude  of  the  United  States 
regarding  exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition 
to  belligerent  nations. 

194 

PART  I. 

PROCLAMATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY.  AND  PAPERS  RELATING  TO  NEUTRALITY. 


13 


NEUTRALITY-ITALY  AND  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. 


By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

A    PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas  a  state  of  war  unhappilj'^  exists  between  Italy  and  Austria-Hungarj' ;  And 
Wliereas  the  United  States  is  on  terms  of  friendship  and  amity  with  the  contending  powers, 
and  with  the  persons  inhabiting  their  several  dominions ; 

And  Wliereas  there  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  residing  within  the  territories  or 
dominions  of  each  of  the  said  belligerents  and  carrying  on  commerce,  trade,  or  other  business 
or  pursuits  therein; 

And  Whereas  there  are  subjects  of  each  of  the  said  belligerents  residing  within  the  ter- 
ritory or  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  and  carrying  on  commerce,  trade,  or  other  business 
or  pursuits  therein; 

And  ^Vllereas  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United  States,  without  interfering  with  the  free 
expression  of  opinion  and  sympathy,  or  with  the  commercial  manufacture  or  sale  of  arms  or 
munitions  of  war,  nevertheless  impose  upon  all  persons  who  may  be  within  their  territory  and 
jurisdiction  the  duty  of  an  impartial  neutrality  during  the  existence  of  the  contest; 

And  ^^^lereas  it  is  the  dut}'  of  a  neutral  government  not  to  permit  or  suffer  the  making  of 
its  waters  subsei"vient  to  the  purposes  of  war; 

Now,  Therefore,  I,  Woodrow  WUson,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  neutrahty  of  the  United  .Slates  and  of  its  citizens  and  of  persons  Avithin  its  ter- 
ritory and  jurisdiction,  and  to  enforce  its  laws  and  treaties,  and  in  order  that  all  persons,  being 
warned  of  the  general  tenor  of  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United  States  in  this  behalf,  and  of 
the  law  of  nations,  may  thus  be  prevented  from  any  violation  of  the  same,  do  hereby  declare 
and  proclaim  that  by  certain  provisions  of  the  act  approved  on  the  4th  day  of  March,  A.  D. 
1909,  commonly  known  as  the  "Penal  Code  of  the  United  States"  the  following  acts  are  for- 
bidd(^n  to  be  done,  under  severe  penalties,  witliin  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  to  wit: 

1.  Accepting  and  exerciidng  a  commission  to  serve  either  of  the  said  belligerents  by  land  or  by  sea  against  the 
other  belligerent. 

2.  Enlisting  or  entering  into  the  service  of  either  of  the  said  belligerents  as  a  soldier,  or  as  a  marine,  or  seaman  on 
board  of  any  vessel  of  war,  letter  of  marque,  or  privateer. 

3.  lliring  or  retaining  another  person  to  enlLst  or  enter  himself  in  the  service  of  either  of  the  said  belligerents  as  a 
soldier,  or  as  a  marine,  or  seaman  on  board  of  any  vessel  of  war,  letter  of  marque,  or  privateer. 

4.  Hiring  another  jjerson  to  go  beyond  the  limits  or  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  with  intent  to  be  enlisted 
as  aforesaid . 

5.  niring  another  person  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States  with  intent  to  be  entered  into  ser\-ice  as 
aforesaid . 

0.  Ptetaining  another  person  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  tlie  United  States  with  intent  to  be  enlisted  as  aforesaid. 

7.  Retaining  another  person  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States  with  intent  to  be  entered  into  service 
as  aforesaid.  (But  the  said  act  is  not  to  be  construed  to  extend  to  a  citizen  or  subject  of  either  belligerent  who,  being 
transiently  within  the  United  States,  shall,  on  board  of  any  vessel  of  war,  wliich,  at  the  time  of  its  arrival  within  the 
Ur.ited  States,  was  fitted  and  equipped  as  such  vessel  of  war,  enlist  or  enter  himself  or  hire  or  retain  another  subject 
or  citizen  of  the  same  belUgerent,  who  is  transiently  within  the  United  States,  to  enlist  or  enter  himself  to  serve  such 
IjcUigerent  on  board  such  vessel  of  war,  if  the  United  States  shall  then  be  at  peace  with  such  belligerent. 

8.  Fitting  out  and  arming,  or  attempting  to  fit  out  and  arm,  or  procuring  to  be  fitted  out  and  armed,  or  knowingly 
beir.g  concerned  in  the  furnishing,  fitting  out,  or  arming  of  any  ship  or  vessel  with  intent  that  such  ship  or  vessel  shall 
be  employed  in  the  serA-ice  of  either  of  the  .said  belligerents. 

9.  Issuing  or  delivering  a  commission  within  the  territory  or  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  for  any  ship  or 
vessel  to  the  intent  that  she  may  be  employed  as  aforesaid. 

10.  Increasing  or  augmenting,  or  procuring  to  be  increased  or  augmented,  or  knowingly  being  concerned  in 
increasing  or  augmenting,  the  force  of  any  ship  of  war,  cruiser,  or  other  armed  vessel,  which  at  the  time  of  her  arrival 
within  the  United  States  was  a  ship  of  war,  cruiser,  or  armed  vessel  in  the  service  of  either  of  the  said  belligerents 
or  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  either,  by  adding  to  the  number  of  guns  of  such  vessels,  or  by  changing  those  on  board 
of  her  for  guns  of  a  lai^er  calibre,  or  by  the  addition  thereto  of  any  equipment  solely  applicable  to  war. 

1  l'roclamation.s,  declaring  and  enjoining  neutrality,  ot  lilto  purport,  vero  issued  as  follows:  Austria-Hungary  and  Scrvia,  Germany  and  Russia- 
Germany  and  France,  .\ugust  4,  1914;  Germany  and  Great  Britain,  Augiist  5,  1914;  Austria-Hungary  and  Russia,  August  7,  1914;  Great  Britain 
and  Austria-Hinigary,  August  13,  1914;  France  and  Austria-Hungary,  August  14,  1914;  Belgium  and  Gwmany,  August  is,  1914;  Japan  and  Ger- 
many. August  24, 1914;  Japan  and  Austria-Hungary,  August  27,  1914;  Belgium  and  Austria-Hungary,  Septemlior  1,  1914;  Great  ijritam  and 
Viirkey,  November  6, 1914;  Italy  and  Turltey,  August  23. 1915. 

15 


16  NEUTRALITY    TROCLAMATIONS. 

11.  Beginning;  or  setting  on  foot  or  jiroviding  or  proparing  the  means  for  any  military  expedition  or  enterprise 
to  be  carrioil  on  from  the  teiTilory  or  jurLsiliction  of  the  United  States  against  the  territories  or  dominions  of  either  of 
the  said  belligerents. 

And  I  do  hereby  further  dechiro  and  proclaim  that  any  frequenting  and  use  of  the  waters 
within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  by  the  armed  vessels  of  a  belligerent, 
whether  public  ships  or  privateers,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  for  hostile  operations,  or  as 
posts  of  observation  \ipon  the  ships  of  war  or  privateers  or  merchant  vessels  of  a  beUigerent 
lying  within  or  being  about  to  enter  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  must  be  regarded  as 
unfriendly  and  offensive,  and  in  violation  of  that  neutrahty  wliich  it  is  the  determination  of 
this  government  to  observe;  and  to  the  end  that  the  hazard  and.  inconvenience  of  such  appre- 
hended practices  may  be  avoided,  I  further  proclaim  and  declare  that  from  and  after  the 
twenty-fifth  day  of  May  instant,  and  during  the  continuance  of  the  present  hostihtics,  no  ship 
of  war  or  privateer  of  any  belligerent  shall  be  permitted  to  make  use  of  any  port,  harbor,  road- 
stead, or  other  watere  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  as  a  station  or  place  of  resort 
for  any  warlike  purpose  or  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  any  facihties  of  warlike  equipment; 
and  no  ship  of  war  or  privateer  of  either  belligerent  shall  be  permitted  to  sail  out  of  or  leave 
any  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  from  wliich 
a  vessel  of  an  opposing  beUigerent  (whether  the  same  shall  be  a  ship  of  war,  a  privateer,  or  a 
merchant  ship)  shall  have  previously  departed,  untU  after  the  expiration  of  at  least  twenty- 
four  hours  from  the  departure  of  such  last-mentioned  vessel  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States.  If  any  ship  of  war  or  privateer  of  a  belligerent  shall,  after  the  time  this  notifi- 
cation takes  effect,  enter  any  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters  of  the  United  States,  such 
vessel  shall  be  required  to  depart  and  to  put  to  sea  within  twenty-four  hours  after  her  entrance 
into  such  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters,  except  in  case  of  stress  of  weather  or  of  her  requir- 
ing provisions  or  tilings  necessary  for  the  subsistence  of  her  crew,  or  for  repairs;  in  any  of 
which  cases  the  authorities  of  the  port  or  of  the  nearest  port  (as  the  case  may  be)  shall  require 
her  to  put  to  sea  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  expiration  of  such  period  of  twenty-four  hours, 
without  permitting  her  to  take  in  supphes  beyond  what  may  be  necessary  for  her  immediate 
use;  and  no  such  vessel  wliich  may  have  been  permitted  to  remain  within  the  waters  of  the 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  repair  shall  continue  within  such  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or 
waters  for  a  longer  period  than  twenty-four  hours  after  her  necessary  repairs  shall  have  been 
completed,  unless  within  such  twenty-four  hours  a  vessel,  whether  sliip  of  war,  privateer,  or 
merchant  ship  of  an  opposing  belligerent,  shall  have  departed  therefrom,  in  wliich  case  the 
time  hmited  for  the  dejjarture  of  such  ship  of  war  or  privateer  shall  be  extended  so  far  as  may 
be  necessary  to  secm'e  an  interval  of  not  less  than  twenty-four  hours  between  such  departure 
and  that  of  anj^  ship  of  war,  privateer,  or  merchant  ship  of  an  opposing  belligerent  which  may 
have  previously  quit  the  same  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters.  No  ship  of  war  or  privateer 
of  a  beUigerent  shaU  be  detained  in  any  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters  of  the  United  States 
more  than  twenty-four  hours,  by  reason  of  the  successive  departures  from  such  port,  harbor, 
roadstead,  or  waters  of  more  than  one  vessel  of  an  opposing  beUigerent.  But  if  there  be  several 
vessels  of  opposing  beUigerents  in  the  same  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters,  the  order  of 
their  departure  therefrom  shaU  be  so  arranged  as  to  afford  the  opportimity  of  leaving  alter- 
nately to  the  vessels  of  the  opposing  beUigerents,  and  to  cause  the  least  detention  consistent 
with  the  objects  of  this  proclamation.  No  ship  of  war  or  privateer  of  a  beUigerent  shaU  be 
permitted,  while  in  any  port,  harbor,  roadstead,  or  waters  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  to  take  in  any  supplies  except  provisions  and  such  other  tilings  as  may  be  requisite  for 
the  subsistence  of  her  crew,  and  except  so  much  coal  only  as  may  be  sufficient  to  carry  such 
vessel,  if  without  any  sad  power,  to  the  nearest  port  of  her  owm  comitry;  or  in  case  the  vessel 
is  rigged  to  go  under  sail,  and  may  also  be  propeUed  by  steam  power,  then  with  half  the  quan- 
tity of  coal  which  she  would  be  entitled  to  receive,  if  dependent  upon  steam  alone,  and  no  coal 
shall  be  again  supplied  to  any  such  ship  of  war  or  privateer  in  the  same  or  any  other  port,  har- 
bor, roadstead,  or  waters  of  the  United  States,  without  special  permission,  imtU  after  the  expi- 
ration of  three  months  from  the  time  when  such  coal  may  have  been  last  suppUed  to  her  within 
the  waters  of  the  United  States,  unless  such  ship  of  war  or  privateer  shall,  since  last  thus 
supphed,  have  entered  a  port  of  the  government  to  which  she  belongs. 

And  I  do  further  declare  and  proclaim  that  the  statutes  and  the  treaties  of  the  United 
States  and  the  law  of  nations  aUko  r<>quire  that  no  person,  within  the  terriory  and  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States,  shaU  take  part,  directly  or  indu-ectly,  in  the  said  wars,  but  shall  remain 
at  peace  with  all  of  the  said  belligerents,  and  shaU  maintain  a  strict  and  impartial  neutrality. 

And  I  do  hereby  enjoin  uU  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  aU  persons  residing  or  being 
within  the  territory  or  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  to  observe  tlie  laws  thereof,  and  to 
commit  no  act  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  said  statutes  or  treaties  or  in  violation  of  the 
law  of  nations  in  that  behalf. 


NEUTRALITY   ritOCI.AMATIONS.  17 

And  I  do  horcbjr  warn  all  cilizcns  of  tlio  I'nllcd  S(al(>s,  and  all  jK-rsons  residing  or  being 
within  its  territory  or  jurisdiction  (hat,  while  tlie  free  and  full  expression  of  sjTiipathies  in  pid)lic 
and  private  is  not  restricted  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  military  forces  in  aid  of  a  bellig- 
erent <',an  not  lawd'uUy  be  originated  or  organized  within  its  jurisdiction;  and  (hat,  whdo  all 
persons  may  lawfully  and  without  restriction  ])y  rcastju  of  the  aforesaid  static  of  war  manufac- 
ture and  sell  within  the  United  States  anns  and  munitions  of  war,  and  other  articles  ordinarily 
known  as  "contraband  of  war,"  yet  they  can  not  carry  such  articles  upon  the  high  seas  for  the 
use  or  ser\-ice  of  a  belligerent,  nor  can  thej^  transport  soldiers  and  ofTK'ers  of  a  belligerent,  or 
attemj)t  to  break  any  blockade  which  may  be  lawfully  established  and  mamtained  during  the 
said  ware  without  incurring  the  risk  of  liostile  capture  and  the  penalties  denounced  by  the  law 
of  nations  in  that  behalf. 

And  I  do  hereby  give  noti<;e  that  all  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  others  who  may 
claini  the  protection  of  this  government,  who  may  misconduct  themselves  in  the  premises,  will 
do  so  iit  their  peril,  and  that  the}^  can  in  no  wise  obtain  any  protection  from  the  government, 
of  the  United  States  against  the  consequences  of  their  misconduct. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States 
to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  twenty-fourth  day  of  May  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  nine  hunched  and  fifteen  and  of  the  independence  of  the  Unit<Ml  States  of  America 
the  one  hundred  and  thirty-ninth. 

[seal.]  Woodkow  Wilson. 

By  the  President: 

W.  J.  Bryan,  Secretary  of  State. 
[No.  1294.] 

AMERICAN  NEUTRALITY— AN  APPEAL  BY  THE  PRESIDENT. 


An  appeal  hy  the  President  of  the   United  States  to  the  citizens  of  the  Repuhlic,  requesting  their 
assistance  in  maintaining  a  state  of  neutrality  during  the  present  European  war. 

[Presented  in  tlio  Senate  by  Mr.  CMlton,  Aug.  19,  1914,  and  ordered  to  be  ])rintod.] 

My  Fellow  Countrymen: 

I  suppose  that  every  thought  fid  man  in  America  has  askeil  himself,  during  these  last 
troubled  weeks,  what  influence  the  European  war  may  exert  upon  (he  ITnited  States,  and  I 
take  the  liberty  of  addressing  a  few  words  to  y<iu  in  order  to  point  out  that  it  is  entirely  within 
our  own  choice  what  its  effects  upon  us  wiU  ])e  and  to  urge  very  earnestly  upon  you  the  sort 
of  speech  and  conduct  which  will  best  safeguard  the  Nation  against  distress  and  disaster. 

Tlie  effect  of  the  war  upon  the  United  States  will  dei^end  upon  what  -American  citizens 
say  anil  do.  Every  man  who  really  loves  .i\jnerica  will  act  and  speak  in  the  true  spirit  of  neu- 
trality, which  is  the  sphit  of  impartiality  and  fairness  and  friendliness  to  all  concerned.  The 
spirit  of  the  Nation  in  this  critical  matter  will  be  determined  largely  by  what  individuals  and 
society  and  those  gathered  in  public  meetings  do  and  say,  upon  what  newspapers  and  maga- 
zines contain,  upon  what  ministers  Titter  in  their  pulpits,  and  men  proclaim  as  their  opinions 
on  the  street. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  are  drawn  from  many  nations,  and  chiefly  from  the  nations 
now  at  war.  It  is  natural  and  inevitable  that  there  should  be  the  utmost  variety  of  sympathy 
and  deshe  among  them  with  regard  to  the  issues  and  circumstances  of  the  confhct.  Some  will 
wish  one  nation,  others  another,  to  succeed  in  the  momentous  struggle.  It  will  be  easy  to 
excite  passion  and  difficult  to  allay  it.  Those  responsible  ft)r  exciting  it  will  assume  a  heavy 
responsibihty,  responsibility  for  no  less  a  thing  than  that  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
whose  love  of  their  (■ountry  and  whose  loyalty  to  its  Government  should  unite  them  as  Americans 
all,  bound  in  lionor  and  alTection  to  think  first  of  her  and  her  interests,  may  be  di\'iiled  in  camps 
of  hostile  opinion,  hot  agamst  each  other,  involved  in  the  war  itself  in  mipuke  and  opuiion  if 
not  in  action. 

Such  divisions  among  us  would  ])c  fatal  to  our  peace  of  mhid  and  might  seriously  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  proper  performance  of  our  duty  as  the  one  great  nation  at  peace,  the  one  people 
holding  itself  ready  to  play  a  part  of  impartial  mediation  and  speak  the  counsels  of  peace  and 
accommodation,  not  as  a  partisan,  but  as  a  friend. 

I  venture,  therefore,  my  fellow  countrymen,  to  speak  a  solenui  word  of  warning  to  you 
agamst  that  deepest,  most  subtle,  most  essential  breach  of  neutrality  which  may  spring  out  of 
pai'tisanship,  out  of  passionately  taking  sides.  The  United  States  must  be  neutral  in  fact  as 
4556°— 15 2 


18  PANAMA   NEUTRAUTi-  PROCLAMATION. 

well  iis  ill  jiamc  duriiiji;  Ihcso  da^'s  that  are  to  try  men's  souls.  Wc  must  ])e  impartial  iu  thought 
as  -well  as  in  action,  must  i)ut  a  curl)  upon  our  sentiments  as  well  as  upon  every  transaction 
that  might  bo  construed  as  a  preference  of  one  party  to  the  struggle  before  another. 

My  thought  is  of  America.  I  am  speaking,  I  feel  sure,  tlio  earnest  wish  and  purpose  of 
every  tlioughtful  American  tliat  tliis  great  country  of  ours,  wliich  is,  of  course,  the  first  in  our 
thoughts  and  in  our  hearts,  sliould  sliow  herself  in  this  time  of  peculiar  trial  a  Nation  fit  beyond 
others  to  exhibit  the  fine  poise  of  undisturbed  judgment,  the  dignity  of  self-control,  the  efficiency 
of  dispassionate  action;  a  Nation  that  neither  sits  in  judgment  upon  others  n<jr  is  disturbed  in 
her  own  counsels  and  which  keeps  hei-self  fit  and  free  to  do  what  is  honest  and  disinterested 
and  truly  serviceable  for  the  peace  of  the  world. 

SluiU  we  not  resolve  to  put  upon  ourselves  the  restraints  which  will  bring  to  our  people 
the  happiness  and  tlae  great  and  lasting  influence  for  peace  wo  covet  for  them? 


NEUTRALITY  IN  THE  WATERS  OF  THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 


Protocol  of  an  agreement  concluded  between  Honorable  Robert  Lansing,  Acting  Secretary  of  State 

of  the  United  StMes,  and  Don  Eusebio  A.  Morales,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and   Minister 

Plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  signed  the  tenth  day  of  October,  1914. 

The  undersigned,  the  Acting  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  in  view  of  the 
close  association  of  the  interests  of  their  respective  Governments  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
and  to  the  end  that  these  interests  may  be  conserved  and  that,  when  a  state  of  war  exists,  the 
neutral  obligations  of  both  Governments  as  neutrals  may  be  maintained,  after  having  conferred 
on  the  subject  and  being  duly  empowered  by  their  respective  Governments,  have  agreed: 

That  hospitality  extended  in  the  waters  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  to  a  belligerent  vessel 
of  war  or  a  vessel  belligerent  or  neutral,  whether  armed  or  not,  which  is  employed  by  a  bellig- 
erent power  as  a  transport  or  fleet  auxiliary  or  m  any  other  way  for  the  direct  purpose  of  prose- 
cuting or  aidmg  hostilities,  whether  by  land  or  sea,  shaU  serve  to  deprive  such  vessel  of  like 
hospitality  in  the  Panama  Canal  Zone  for  a  period  of  three  months,  and  vice  versa. 

In  testimony  whereof,  the  imdersigncd  have  signed  and  sealed  the  present  Protocol  in  the 
city  of  Washmgton  this  tentli  day  of  October,  1914. 

Robert  Lansing.  [l.  s.] 

Eusebio  A.  Morales,     [l.  s.] 


NEUTRALITY— PANAMA  CANAL  ZONE. 


By  the  President  if  the  United  States  of  America. 

A    PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas  the  United  States  is  neutral  in  the  present  war,  and  whereas  the  United  States 
exercises  sovereignty  in  the  land  and  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone  and  is  authorized  by  its  treaty 
with  Panama  of  February  twenty-six,  nineteen  himdred  and  four,  to  maintain  neutrality  in 
the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  the  harbors  adjacent  to  the  said  cities: 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Woodrow  Wilson,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  do  hereby 
declare  and  proclaim  the  following  Rules  and  Regulations  Governing  the  Use  of  the  Panama 
Canal  by  Vessels  of  Belligerents  and  the  Maintenance  of  Neutrality  by  the  United  States  in 
the  Canal  Zone,  which  are  in  addition  to  the  general  '"Rules  and  Regulations  for  the  Operation 
and  Navigation  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  Approaches  Thereto,  mcluding  all  Waters  under  its 
jurisdiction"  put  into  force  by  Executive  Order  of  July  9,  1914,  and  I  do  bring  to  the  attention 
of  all  concerned  the  Protocol  of  an  Agreement  between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  signed  at  Washmgton,  October  10,  1914,  which  protocol  is  hereimto  annexed. 

Rule  1.  A  vessel  of  war,  for  the  purposes  of  these  rules,  is  defmcd  as  follows:  a  public 
armed  vessel,  imder  the  command  of  an  officer  duly  commissioned  by  the  goverimient,  whose 
name  appears  on  the  list  of  officers  of  the  military  fleet,  and  the  crew  of  which  are  under  regular 
naval  disciplme,  wliich  vessel  is  ciualified  by  its  armament  and  the  character  of  its  personnel 
to  take  ofl'ensivo  action  against  the  public  or  private  sliips  of  the  enemy. 

Rule  2.  In  order  to  maintain  both  the  neutrality  of  the  Canal  and  that  of  the  United  States 
ownuig  and  operating  it  as  a  government  enterprise,  the  same  treatment,  except  as  hereinafter 
noted,  as  that  given  to  vessels  of  war  of  the  beUigerents  shall  bo  given  to  every  vessel,  belligerent 


PANAMA    NEUTRALITY   PKOCT-AMATTON.  19 

or  noutral,  whether  armed  or  not,  that  <loes  not  fall  uiuler  tlio  (h^fiiiition  of  Rule  1,  which  vessel 
is  employed  by  a  belligerent  Power  as  a  transport  or  fleet  auxiliary  or  in  any  other  way  for  the 
direct  purpose  of  prosecuting  or  aiding  hostilities,  whether  by  land  or  sea;  but  sucl.  treatment 
shall  I'ot  1)0  given  to  a  vessel  fitted  u|>  and  used  exclusively  as  a  hospilal  sliip. 

Rule  3.  A  vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent ,  or  a  vessel  falling  umler  Rule  2  which  is  comniaiided 
by  an  officer  of  the  military  fleet,  shall  only  be  permitted  to  pass  through  the  Canal  after  her 
coniinaudiiig  ofTicer  has  given  written  assurance  to  the  Authorities  of  the  Panama  Canai  that 
the  Rules  and  Regulations  will  bo  faithfully  observed. 

The  authorities  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  take  such  steps  as  may  be  requisite  to  insure 
the  observance  of  the  Rules  and  Regulations  by  vessels  falling  under  Rule  2  which  are  not 
commanded  by  an  officer  of  the  military  fleet. 

Rule  4-  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  and  vessels  falling  under  Rule  2  shall  not  revictual 
nor  take  any  stores  in  the  Canal  except  so  far  as  may  bo  strictly  necessary;  and  the  transit  of 
such  vessels  through  the  Canal  shall  be  effected  with  the  least  possible  delay  in  accordance 
with  the  Canal  Regulations  in  force,  and  with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the 
necessities  of  the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  Rules  as  vessels  of  war  of  the  belligerents. 

Rule  5.  No  vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent  or  vessel  faUing  under  Rule  2  shall  receive  fuel  or 
lubricants  while  within  the  territorial  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone,  except  on  the  written  authoriza- 
tion of  the  Canal  Authorities,  specifying  the  amount  of  fuel  and  lubricants  which  may  be 
received. 

Rule  6.  Before  issuing  any  authorization  for  the  receipt  of  fuel  and  lubricants  by  any 
vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent  or  vessel  falling  under  Ride  2,  the  Canal  Authorities  shall  obtain 
a  Avritten  declaration,  Avlj  signed  by  the  officer  commanding  such  vessel,  stating  the  amount  of 
fuel  and  lubricants  already  on  board. 

Rule  7.  Supplies  will  not  bo  furnished  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  cither 
directly,  or  indirectly  tlirough  the  intervention  of  a  corporation,  or  otherwise,  to  vessels  of  war 
of  a  belligerent  or  vessels  falling  under  Rule  2.  If  furnished  by  private  contractors,  or  if  taken 
from  vessels  under  the  control  of  a  belligerent,  fuel  and  lubricants  may  be  taken  on  board 
vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  or  vessels  falling  under  Rule  2,  only  upon  permission  of  the  Canal 
Authorities,  and  then  only  in  such  amounts  as  wUl  enable  them,  with  the  fuel  and  luliricants 
already  on  board,  to  reach  the  nearest  accessible  port,  not  an  enemy  port,  at  which  they  can 
obtain  supplies  necessary  for  the  continuation  of  the  voyage.  The  amounts  of  fuel  and 
lubricants  so  received  wiU  be  deducted  from  the  amounts  otherwise  allowed  in  the  ports  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  during  any  time  within  a  period  of  three  months  thereafter. 
Provisions  furnished  by  contractors  may  be  supplied  o:dy  upon  permission  of  the  Canal 
Authorities,  and  then  only  in  amount  sufficient  to  bring  up  their  supplies  to  the  peace  standard. 

Rule  8.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  ti-oops,  munitions  of  war,  or  warlike 
materials  in  the  Canal,  except  in  case  of  necessity  due  to  accidental  hindrance  of  the  transit. 
In  such  cases  the  Canal  Authorities  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  necessity,  and  the  transit  shall  be 
resumed  with  all  possible  dispatch. 

Rule  9.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  and  vessels  faUing  under  Rule  2  shall  not  remain  in 
the  ten-itorial  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone  inuler  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  vStates  longer  than 
twenty-four  hours  at  any  one  time,  except  in  case  of  distress;  and  in  such  case,  shall  dc])art 
as  soon  as  possible;  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one  belligerent  shall  not  depart  within  twenty-four 
hom-s  from  the  departure  of  a  vessel  of  an  opposing  belligerent. 

The  twenty-four  houre  of  this  rule  shall  be  construed  to  be  twenty-four  hours  in  addition 
to  the  time  necessarily  occupied  in  passing  through  the  Canal. 

Rule  10.  In  the  exercise  of  the  exclusive  right  of  the  United  vStates  to  provide  for  the 
regulation  and  management  of  the  Canal,  and  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  Canal  shall  be  kept 
free  and  open  on  terms  of  entire  equality  to  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war,  there  shiill  not  be, 
except  by  special  arrangement,  at  any  one  time  a  greater  number  of  vessels  of  war  of  any  one 
nation,  includuig  those  of  the  allies  of  a  belligerent  nation,  than  three  in  either  terminal  port 
and  its  adjacent  terminal  waters,  or  than  three  in  transit  through  the  Canal;  nor  shall  the 
total  number  of  such  vessels,  at  an}'  one  time,  exceed  six  in  all  the  territorial  waters  of  the 
Canal  Zone  midcr  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 

Rule  11.  Wlien  vessels  of  war  or  vessels  falling  under  Ride  2,  belonging  to  or  employed  by 
opposing  belligerents,  are  present  simultaneously  in  the  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone,  a  period  of 
not  less  than  twenty-four  hours  must  elapse  between  the  departure  of  the  vessel  belonging  to  or 
employed  by  one  belligerent  and  the  departure  of  the  vessel  belongmg  to  or  employed  by  his 
adversary. 

The  order  of  departure  is  determined  by  order  of  arrival,  unless  the  vessel  which  arrived 
fii'st  is  so  circumstanced  that  an  extension  of  her  stay  is  permissible. 


20  PPF.VENTTON   OK   TUF,   VIOLATIONS   OF    NErTKAIITV. 

A  vcssol  of  war  of  a  1)cHi<j(MTnt.  or  vessel  faHiTi<^  under  Kiile.  2  may  not,  leave  the  waters  of  tlio 
Canal  Zone  until  twenty-four  hours  after  the  departure  of  a  private  vessel  flying  the  flag  of  the 
advei-sary. 

Rule  12.  A  vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent  or  vessel  ffJling  under  Rnlo  2  which  has  left  the 
waters  of  the  Canal  Zone,  whetlier  slio  has  passed  through  the  Canal  or  not,  sliall,  if  she  returns 
within  a  period  of  one  week  after  her  departure,  lose  all  privileges  of  ])recedencc  in  dejiarture 
from  the  Canal  Zone,  or  in  passage  through  the  Canal,  over  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  her  adver- 
saries wliieh  may  enter  those  waters  after  her  return  and  before  the  expiration  of  one  week 
subsequent  to  her  previous  departure.  In  any  such  case  the  time  of  departure  of  a  vessel 
which  has  so  returned  sliall  be  fixed  by  the  Canal  Authorities,  who  may  in  so  doing  consider  the 
wishes  of  the  commander  of  a  public  vessel  or  of  the  master  of  a  private  vessel  of  the  adversary 
of  the  returned  vessel,  which  adversary's  vessel  is  then  present  within  the  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone. 

Rule  13.  The  repair  facilities  and  docks  belonging  to  the  United  States  and  administered 
by  the  Canal  Authorities  shall  not  be  used  by  a  vessel  of  war  of  a  belligerent,  or  vessels  falling 
under  Rule  2,  except  when  necessary  in  case  of  actual  distress,  and  then  only  upon  the  order 
of  the  Canal  Authorities,  and  only  to  the  degree  necessary  to  render  the  vessel  sea-worthy. 
Any  work  authorized  shall  be  done  with  the  least  possible  delay. 

Rule  14-  The  radio  installation  of  any  vessel  of  a  belligerent  Power,  public  or  private,  or 
of  any  vessel  falling  under  Rule  2,  shall  be  used  only  in  connection  with  Canal  business  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  busuiess  while  within  the  waters  of  the  Canal  Zone,  includuig  the  waters 
of  Colon  and  Panama  Harbors. 

Rule  15.  Air  craft  of  a  belligerent  Power,  public  or  private,  are  forbidden  to  descend  or 
arise  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  at  the  Canal  Zone,  or  to  pass  through  the  air 
spaces  above  the  lands  and  waters  within  said  jurisdiction. 

Rule  16.  For  the  purpose  of  these  rules  the  Canal  Zone  includes  the  cities  of  Panama  and 
Colon  and  the  harbors  adjacent  to  the  said  cities. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  United  States 
to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  this  thirteenth  day  of  November  in  the  year  of  ovu"  Lord 
one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  fourteen  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  the  one 
hundred  and  thirty-ninth. 

[seal.]  Woodrow  Wilson. 

By  the  President: 

W.  J.  Bryan,  Secretary  of  State. 
[No.  1287.] 


PREVENTION  OF  THE  VIOLATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY. 


Joint  Resolution  To  empower  the  President  to  better  enforce  and  maintain  the  neutrality  of  the 

United  States. 

Resolved  hij  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  dmgress 
assembled,  That,  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  resolution,  and  diu'ing  the  existence  of  a  war 
to  which  the  United  States  is  not  a  party,  and  in  order  to  prevent  the  neutrality  of  the  United 
States  from  bemg  violated  by  the  use  of  its  territory,  its  ports,  or  its  territorial  watei-s  as  the 
base  of  operations  for  the  armed  forces  of  a  belligerent,  contrary  to  the  obligations  imposed 
by  the  law  of  nations,  the  treaties  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  or  contrary  to  the 
statutes  of  the  United  States,  the  President  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  and  empowered 
to  direct  the  collectors  of  customs  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  to  vrithliold  clear- 
ance from  ail}"  vessel,  American  or  foreign,  which  he  has  reasonable  cause  to  beheve  to  be  about 
to  carry  fuel,  arms,  ammunition,  men,  or  supplies  to  any  warship,  or  tender,  or  supply  ship  of 
a  belligerent  nation,  in  violation  of  the  obligations  of  the  United  States  as  a  neutral  nation. 

In  case  any  such  v(>ssel  shall  depart  or  attempt  to  depart  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  without  clearance  for  any  of  the  purposes  above  set  forth,  the  owner  or  master  or  person 
or  persons  having  charge  or  conunand  of  such  vessel  shall  severally  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  $2,000  nor  more  than  $10,000,  or  to  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  two  years,  or  both,  and, 
in  addition,  such  vessel  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States. 

That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  and  empowered 
to  employ  sucli  part  of  the  land  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  as  shall  be  necessary  to 
carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  resolution. 

That  the  provisions  of  this  resolution  shall  be  deemed  to  extend  to  all  land  and  water, 
continental  or  insular,  within  the  jmisdiction  of  the  United  States. 

Approved,  March  4,  1915. 


PART  II. 


VIOLATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY— PANAMA  CANAL. 


21 


VIOLATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY-PANAMA  CANAL. 

File  No.  763.72111/1223. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  432.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  December  IS,  1914- 
Sir:  For  some  days  past  the  press  of  this  country  has  reported  various  incidents  of  the 
violation  of  neutrality  of  the  Panama  Canal  of  which  British  ships  have  heon  accused  and  the 
Governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone  has,  it  is  stated,  ])C('n  obliged  to  ask  for  an  armed  force 
in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  these  violations.  Although  I  have  received  no  official  representations 
from  you,  sir,  I  thought  it  well  to  request  from  the  British  representative  in  Panama  a  report 
on  the  subject  in  order  that  I  miglit  be  in  a  position  to  discuss  tiie  juatter  sliould  it  be  brought 
officially  to  my  attention.  I  now  have  the  honour  to  state  that  I  have  to-day  received  an  answer 
from  Sir  C.  Mallet,  the  British  Minister  in  Panama,  which  is  to  the  following  effect: 

Facts  are  as  follows:  The  steamsliip  Mallina,  an  Admiralty  collier,  arrived  here  from  Acapulco  without  a  bill  of 
health  from  the  American  consul.  She  was  in  consequence  indicted  for  a  violation  of  the  quarantine  regulations  of 
the  Canal  Zone.  A  nominal  fine  of  $50  was  imposed  on  her  by  the  Court.  At  Balboa  the  Master  of  the  Mallina  was 
ordered  to  sea  early  next  morning  and  notified  the  port  captain  accordingly.  Clearance  papers  were  ready,  but  it 
appears  that  the  master  had  expected  that  they  would  be  sent  to  him  together  with  some  stores  which  he  had  orilered 
from  the  comnusariat  of  the  Canal.  Neither  the  stores  nor  the  clearance  papers  arrived.  He  thus  had  to  choose  between 
a  violation  of  the  customs  law  and  a  violation  of  neutrality.  Of  these  two  courses  he  thought  the  wiser  course  was  to 
choose  the  former,  and  accordingly  left  without  his  clearance  papers. 

It  furthermore  appears  that  the  Mallina  was  accused  by  Hia  Excellency  Colonel  Goetlials,  the  Gtovemor  of  the  Panama 
Canal  Zone,  of  lia\'ing  u.sed  her  wireless  installation  witliin  the  limits  of  the  Canal  Zone  and  tlius  liaving  ^•iolatod  the 
regulations  governing  the  use  of  radio  iiistnunenta  in  waters  under  American  juri.><di(tion.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
Mallina  lias  no  instanation  for  wireless  telegraphy.  A  communication  lias  now  been  received  in  writing  from  His 
Excellency  stating  that  he  Imd  been  WTongly  informed. 

As  far  as  I  am  aware  no  breach  of  nouti-.ility  of  any  kind  luis  been  committed  by  British  vessel.^  witliin  the  waters 
of  tlie  Canal  Zone.  British  warsliips  luive  no  doubt  when  off  the  coast  used  powerful  wireless  telegraphy  instiillations 
and  tliis  may  have  given  rise  to  the  rumors  current  in  the  press.  Neither  the  warships  nor  the  colliers  have,  so  far  as  I 
know,  been  guilty  of  any  infringement  of  tlie  regulations. 

It  wiU  be  in  the  recollection  of  your  Department,  as  also  of  the  Secretary  for  War,  that  I 
have  on  several  occasions  asked  to  be  supplied  with  the  regulations  which  as  I  understood  were 
being  prepared  for  enforcing  noutrality  in  the  Canal  Zone.  It  was  the  desire  of  my  government 
that  such  information  should  bo  obtained  as  soon  as  possible  in  order  that  it  might  be  commu- 
nicated to  British  ships.  On  August  6  this  Embassy  addressed  to  you  an  urgent  note  enquiring 
whether  any  and  if  so  what  restrictions  would  be  placed  on  l)olligerent  vessels  passing  through 
the  Panama  Canal,  and  on  the  r2th,  13th,  and  14th  of  the  same  month  Mr.  Barclay  again  spoke 
as  to  the  necessity  of  issuing  regulations  for  the  Canal  Zone  without  delay,  in  view  of  the  short 
time  remauiing  before  the  opening  of  the  Canal.  It  was  not  until  November  17  that  the  Embassy 
received  the  memorandum  of  tlie  State  Department  dated  November  the  14th  enclosing  copy 
of  the  rules  and  regulations  governing  the  use  of  the  Panama  Canal  by  vessels  of  the  beUigerents 
and  the  maintenance  of  neutrality  by  United  States  in  the  Canal  Zone. 

On  receij)t  of  these  regulations  I  telegraplicd  to  my  Government  and  also  transmitted  the 
regulations,  which  as  you  are  aware  are  of  some  length,  by  post  to  London.  My  telegram  only 
contained  a  ])rief  summary.  The  regulations  themselves  coidd  not  have  reached  London  before 
the  last  days  of  November,  and  it  was  materially  impossible  for  ships  which  reached  the  Canal 
Zone  in  the  first  days  of  December  to  be  cognizant  of  the  full  text. 

Tlie  above  facts  of  which  you  will  find  proof  in  the  archives  of  your  Department  will  show 
that  this  Embassy  has,  I  trust,  been  guilty  of  no  neghgence  in  the  communication  of  the  regu- 
lations. 

I  now  have  the  honour  to  appeal  to  your  courtesy  in  order  to  be  informed  what  charges,  if 

any,  have  been  brought  by  the  United  States  authorities  against  British  ships  or  officers  for 

violation  of  the  Canal  Zone  regulations  in  order  that  such  charges  may  receive  the  fullest 

investigation.     I  trust  I  need  not  say  that  it  is  the  desire  of  His  Majesty's  Government  that 

British  ships  and  officers  should  conform  in  everyway  to  every  detail  of  the  regulations  imposed 

by  the  United  States  authorities  under  the  authority  of  the  President  and  in  conformity  with 

the  treaty  obligations  of  Great  Britain. 

•  I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spking-Rice. 

23 


24  NKUTHAI.ITY   VIOLATIONS PANAMA   CANAL. 

File  No.  763.72111/1239. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  tlie  Counselor. 

J.  No.  A  3180.]  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  December  21 ,  W14- 

My  dear  Mr.  Lansing:  I  loam  that  tlio  British  S.  S.  Mallina  and  Tremeadow,  who  served 
as  tenders  to  Britisli  <'niisors,  now  deinaiul  to  be  allowed  to  eoal  in  Panama  and  to  leave  for 
Australia,  alleginj;;  that  they  have  ceased  to  he  tenders  of  British  warships. 

I  beg  to  draw  your  attention  to  tho  fact  that,  as  far  as  can  be  seen  from  here,  their  case, 

in  the  principal  points,  is  identical  with  the  case  of  the  German  S.  S.  LocTcsun. 

I  am,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  763.72111/1223. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Amhassador. 

No.  596.]  Department  of  State, 

'Washington,  December  23,  191 1^. 

Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  December  18, 
with  reference  to  the  neutrahty  of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone. 

The  Department  is  giving  its  attention  to  the  contents  of  j'our  note,  and  will  communicate 

again  with  you  on  the  subject. 

Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


File  No.  763.72111/1239. 

The  Counselor  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  23,  191^. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  In  reply  to  j'our  note  of  the  21st  instant,  with  reference  to  the 
British  S.  S.  Mallind  and  Tremeadow,  which  you  state  have  served  as  tenders  to  British  cruisers, 
and  are  demanding  coal  in  the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  I  woidd  advise  you  that  these  vessels  have 
been  considered  by  the  Canal  authorities  as  coming  luider  Rule  2  of  the  President's  proclama- 
tion of  November  13  last  in  relation  to  the  neutrality  of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  which  accords 
to  transports  or  fleet  auxiharies  the  same  treatment  as  that  given  to  belhgerent  vessels  of  war. 

I  am,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/1273. 

The  Britvsh  Ambassador  to  the  Secretanj  of  State. 

No.  448.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  Decemher  25,  191 4. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  my  note  Xo.  432  of  the  ISth  instant  on  the  subject  of  the  neutrality 
rules  of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone  I  have  the  honour  to  inform  j'ou  that  I  have  received  a  further 
statement  from  His  Majesty's  Muiister  in  Panama  to  the  effect  that  certain  British  colliers  had 
violated  the  cjuarantine  regulations  by  arriving  without  a  bill  of  health  from  an  American  con- 
sidar  officer  at  the  port  of  departure,  as  the  law  requires.  These  acts,  the  Minister  states,  were 
involuntary  on  the  part  of  the  masters  of  these  vessels  but  representations  have  been  made  anil 
steps  have  now  been  taken  in  order  to  inform  British  masters  as  to  the  requirements  of  the  law. 

With  regard  to  tiie  statement  as  to  the  improper  use  of  the  wireless  apparatus  by  British 
ships,  the  Minister  states  that  only  one  of  them  the  Protesilaus  was  fitted  ■with  a  wireless  appa- 
ratus and  that  he  had  understood  from  the  master  that  this  was  dismantled  immediately  on 
the  arrival  of  the  sliip  in  port.  It  appears,  however,  from  subsequent  enquiries  that  she  received 
a  wireless  code  message  wliile  lying  in  the  bay  at  8  j).  m.  December  10  and  requested  the  landing 
station  to  receive  in  plain  language  a  message  for  the  British  Consid.  Tlie  reply  was  in  the 
negative  and  the  \vireless  was  then  dismantled  and  was  not  used  again. 

With  regard  to  the  breach  of  tho  "law"  (but  not  of  the  "neutrality"  regulations)  by  the 
steamer  Mallina,  as  already  explained,  she  had  not  received  her  clearance  papers  at  the  hour 
fixed  for  her  departure  by  the  autliorities,  under  the  neutridity  rides,  and  she  consequently 
chose  the  lessser  of  the  two  evils,  by  leaving  without  her  clearance  papers.  The  Mallina  had 
no  wireless  apparatus. 


NEUTRALITY-    VIOLATIONS PANAMA   CANAL.  25 

Tlie  action  of  tho  local  authorities  in  the  case  of  tho  Protesilaus  was  of  course  in  entire 
accordance  with  tho  practice  observed  in  United  States  waters  and  which  has  been  the  subject 
of  corresi)ondence  with  this  Embassy.  Tho  British  Government,  as  you,  sir,  are  aware,  has 
always  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  sealing  of  wireless  apparatus  in  neutral  waters  is  right  and 
proper. 

The  Minister's  report  has  been  transmitted  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  who  has  now  instructed 
me  to  inform  you  that  tho  British  Government  will  impress  upon  British  shipmasters  the  duty 
of  studying  tho  neutrjility  rules  of  tlie  Zone  and  of  adhering  to  them  as  closely  as  possible.  But 
I  venture  to  point  out  that  the  rules  are  not  six  weeks  old  and  that  until  they  are  well  known 
and  have  been  acted  on  for  some  time  incidents  such  as  that  of  the  Mallina  are  liable  to  occur. 
Should  this  happen,  which  I  trust  wiU  not  bo  tho  case,  tho  requisite  action  will  no  doubt  bo 
taken  by  the  United  States  autliorities  with  their  wonted  courtesy  and  consideration  and  His 
Majesty's  Government  confitknitly  hope  that  too  much  importance  should  not  be  attached 
to  such  incidents  especially  at  this  early  date  after  the  publication  of  the  rules. 
I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


FUe  No.  763.72111/1273. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Amhassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  2,  1915. 
Excellency:  I  have  Vt\v,  honor  to  ai'knowledgo  lh(5  receipt  of  your  note  of  December  25, 
1914,  with  reference  to  tho  neutrality  rules  and  quarantine  regulations  of  the  Panama  Canal 
Zone. 

The  contents  of  your  note  wOl  receive  the  Department's  attentive  consideration  in  con- 
nection with  Your  Excellency's  previous  note  on  the  above  subject,  dated  December  18. 
I  have,  etc., 

Robert  IjAn.sinq. 


PART  III. 


VIOLATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY  BY  BELLIGERENI'  WARSHIPS. 


27 


VIOLATIONS  OF  NEUTRALITY  BY  BELLIGERENT  WARSHIPS. 

File  No.  763.72111/245. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Counselor. 

British  Embas.sy, 

Washington,  September  24,  lOlJ^. 
Dkar  Mr.  Counselor:  You  wore  good  enough  to  call  my  attention  to  a  report  wliicli 
had  reached  your  attention  to  the  effect  that  a  British  warehip  had  communicated  by  wireless 
with  the  shore  a  request  for  some  supplies.  I  at  once  informed  my  Government,  who  have 
telegraphed  to  me  that  His  Majesty's  ships  have  been  instructed  on  no  account  to  telegraph 
to  New  York  for  supplies  or  newspapers. 
Yours  sincerely, 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/502. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
J.  No.  A  1775.]  Imperial  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  D.  C,  October  31,  1914- 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  I  am  told  that  the  tug  F.  B.  Dalzell  at  11  p.  m.  in  the  night 
to  September  31-October  1,  put  to  sea  from  Pier  6  East  River,  New  York,  to  carry  provisions 
to  the  British  cruiser  Essex.  The  Essex  was  lying  about  5  nautical  miles  off  Gedney  Cliannel , 
two  nautical  miles  southeast  of  Scotland  Lightship.  jVs  she  came  out  of  Gedney  Channel  the 
tug  is  said  to  have  come  under  the  searchlight  of  the  American  warship  Florida  that  was  lying 
in  front  of  the  chamiel.  The  provisions,  about  40  tons  of  fresh  meats  wrapped  in  cloth,  were 
taken  from  the  tug  in  boats  that  had  been  sent  from  the  war  vessel.  The  tug  then  returned 
to  Now  York  where  it  arrived  at  daybreak. 

The  tug  (r.  II.  DalzeU  which  l)clongs  to  the  same  line,  went  on  a  similar  errand  in  the  night 
of  October  1-2.     That  tug  also  loft  from  Pier  6  East  River. 

I  have  the  lioTior  to  bring  the  foregoing  to  Your  Excellency's  knowledge  with  a  request 
that  you  wiU  kindly  set  on  foot  an  investigation  of  the  case  and  ascertain  whether  it  constitutes 
a  violation  of  the  neutrality  laws. 
Accept,  etc. 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  763.72111/724. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 


No.  .371.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  October  SI,  1914. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  my  verbal  communication  which  I  made  on  the  16th  with  regard 
to  the  Italian  Steamship  Amista,  I  have  the  lioiior,  under  instructions  from  my  Government, 
to  make  the  following  communication: 

Tliis  shi|)  was  chartonul  by  the  Bei-wind-Wliito  Coal  Mining  Company  of  New  York  and 
loaded  coal  and  stores  at  N(nvport  News.  Representations  were  made  in  writing  to  the  collector 
of  customs  by  the  British  Vice-Consul  on  the  ground  that  the  Berwind-White  Coal  Mining 
Company  of  New  York  was  under  strong  suspicion  of  chartering  neutral  ships  in  order  to  supply 
German  cruisers,  that  the  firm  named  in  Punt  a  jVrenas  as  receivers  of  tlie  cargo,  were  onl)' 
nominal  consignees,  and  that  tiie  neutral  clause  in  the  vessel's  charter  party  was  incorrect. 

Tlio  collector  replied  that  he  liad  inquired  into  the  matter  and  had  satisfied  himself  that 
the  master  and  agents  of  the  vessel  were  acting  in  good  faith  and  that  lie  could  not  see  his  way 
to  withliold  clearances. 

The  vessel  cleared  at  the  customhouse  on  October  17  and  the  Collector  invited  the  Consul 
to  inspect  tlie  clearance  papers  which  were  in  order,  the  vessel  clearing  for  Montevideo  via 
Barbados. 

I  have  now  received  information  from  my  Government  to  the  effect  that  the  Amista  never 
arrived  at  Barbados.  At  the  slowest  si)eed  she  shoidil  liave  arrived  October  24.  Under  these 
circumstances  I  have  the  honor  to  invite  the  earnest  attention  of  your  Government  to  this 
confirmation  of  the  suspect  character  of  the  vessel's  voyage. 

29 


30  NEUTRALITY    VIOLATIONS   BY   WARSHIPS. 

I  have  to  adil  (hut  tlio  systematic  way  in  which  neutral  ships  have  left  American  ports  in 
order  to  supply  German  cruisers,  and  have  been  allowed  to  operate  freely  in  the  ports  of  the 
United  States,  in  spite  of  the  warnings  which  have  been  given,  is  a  matter  which  causes  grave 
anxiety  to  His  Majesty's  Government.  I  am  therefore  instructed  to  request  tliat  in  view  of 
the  usages  of  international  law  and  the  terms  of  the  instructions  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  locjil  authorities  for  the  preservation  of  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States,  such 
measures  as  arc  possible  may  be  taken  to  prevent  the  use  of  j)orts  of  the  United  States  for 
this  unneutral  purpose. 

I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


FUe  No.  763.72111/724. 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Ambassador. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  2,  1914. 

Excellency:  With  reference  to  your  note  of  the  31st  ultimo  regarding  the  Italian  steam- 
ship Amista,  which  is  reported  to  have  cleared  from  Newport  News  on  the  17th  ultimo  for 
Montevideo  via  the  Barbados,  where  you  state  she  appears  not  to  have  arrived,  I  have  the 
honor  to  advise  you  that  steps  have  been  taken  to  make  a  further  investigation  of  this  case 
with  a  view  to  determining  any  other  facts  in  regard  to  the  bona  fides  of  the  destination  of  this 
vessel.  The  Department  will  also  undertake  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  whether  the  consignee  of 
the  cargo  of  the  Amista  expected  such  shipments  to  arrive. 

You  further  state  that  the  systematic  way  in  which  neutral  vessels  have  left  American 
ports  in  order  to  supply  German  cruisers  and  have  been  allowed  to  operate  freely  in  the  ports 
of  the  United  States  in  spite  of  the  warnings  which  have  been  given  is  a  matter  which  causes 
grave  anxiety  to  His  Brittanic  Majesty's  Government,  and  you  request  under  instructions 
from  your  Government  that  such  measures  as  are  possible  may  be  taken  to  prevent  the  use  of 
the  ports  of  the  United  States  for  this  unneutral  purpose. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  so  far  as  I  am  advised  every  suspicious  case  of 
vessels  leaving  American  ports  to  supply  German  cruisers  which  has  been  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  with  any  basis  of  fact  to  support  such  sus- 
picion, has  been  thoroughly  investigated  by  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  with  a  view 
to  determining  in  every  possible  way  whether  the  transaction  was  bona  fide  or  such  as  might 
be  interfered  with  by  this  Government  for  the  preservation  of  the  neutraht}^  of  the  United 
States.  Further  than  this  the  Government  of  the  United  States  does  not  understand  that  its 
duty  in  these  matters  requires  it  to  go,  for  otherwise  the  war  would  impose  upon  the  United 
States  the  burden  of  enforcing  restrictions  which  are  not,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Government, 
prescribed  by  the  rules  of  international  law.  The  Government  of  the  United  States,  there- 
fore, feels  obliged  to  dechne  to  accept  any  suggestion  intimating  that  its  vigilance  in  the  main- 
tenance of  its  neutral  duties  under  international  law  has  been  relaxed  so  as  to  allow  vessels 
engaged  in  violations  of  such  duties  to  "operate  freely  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States." 

I  have,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/502. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

No.  1133.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  23,  1914. 
Excellency:  Referring  to  your  note  of  the  21st  ultimo,  stating  that  your  Embassj^  was  in 
receipt  of  information  to  the  effect  that,  on  the  night  of  September  30  last,  the  tug  F.  B.  DalzeU 
put  to  sea  from  Pier  6,  East  River,  New  York,  to  carry  ])rovisions  to  the  British  cruiser  Essex, 
which  was  lying  off  Gedney  Channel;  that  as  she  came  out  of  Gedne^^  Channel  tlie  tug  came 
under  the  searclihghts  of  the  U.  S.  S.  Florida;  that  the  provisions  were  taken  from  the  tug  in 
boats  sent  from  the  Essex;  and  that  the  tug  G.  II.  DalzeU  went  on  a  similar  eiTand  on  the  night 
of  October  1,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  Government  of  ihe  United  States  has  had 
the  matter  thorouglily  investigated  and  has  not  been  able  to  find  as  yet  sufficient  evidence 
showing  that  the  Tug  F.  B.  DalzeU  has  furnished  supplies  to  British  warships.  If  Your  Excel- 
lency can  supply  any  evidence  bearing  on  the  matter,  the  Department  will  be  glad  to  have  a 
further  investigation  made  on  the  basis  of  the  new  information. 
Accept,  etc. 

RoBEBT  Lansing. 


NEUTKALITY  VIOLATIONS  BY  WARSHIPS.  31 

File  No.  7G3.     72111/1203. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
J.  No.  A  2985.]  Imperial  German  Embassy, 

Wnshington,  Dcrrmhtr  15,  1014. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  Tho  position  taken  by  the  Govcriunont  of  the  United  States 
as  to  the  delivery  of  coal  and  other  necessaries  to  warships  of  tho  belligerent  states  consti- 
tuting a  violation  of  neutrality  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Imperial  German  Government,  untenable 
in  international  law.  The  Imperial  Government  has  set  forth  its  position  on  this  point  in  a 
memorandum  wliich,  in  compliance  with  instructions,  I  have  the  honor  to  forward  to  your 
Excellency. 

Tlie  Imperial  Government  indulges  the  hope  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
upon  perusal  of  the  memorandum,  will  concur  in  the  view  of  the  Imperial  Government  and, 
withm  the  limits  drawn  in  tho  memorandum,  will  grant  free  clearance  to  vessels  that  should 
supply  German  warships  with  coal.  I  should  be  thankful  to  your  Excellency  for  a  communi- 
cation in  this  respect. 
Accept,  etc. 

J.  Bernstorff. 


[Enclosure — Translation.] 

MEMORANDUM. 

Under  the  general  principles  of  international  law  no  exception  can  be  taken  to  neutral  states  letting  war  material 
go  to  Germany's  enemies  from  or  tlirough  their  territory.  This  is  accordant  with  Article  7  of  the  Hague  Conventions  of 
October  18,  1907,  concerning  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  in  naval  and  land  war.  If,  however,  a  state  avails  itself 
of  that  liberty  in  favor  of  her  enemies,  then  it  must,  in  accordance  with  a  rule  generally  accepted  in  international  law 
and  confirmed  in  .Vrticle  9  of  the  two  Conventions  above  cited,  place  no  obstacle  to  the  German  military  force  ordering 
contraband  from  or  through  its  territory. 

The  neutrality  declaration  of  the  United  States  takes  this  construction  into  full  account  when  it  allows  contra- 
band of  war  to  be  delivered  equally  to  all  belligerents. 

"All  persons  may  lawfully  and  without  restriction  by  reason  of  the  aforesaid  state  of  war  manufactiu-e  and  sell 
within  the  United  States  arms  and  ammunitions  of  war  and  other  articles  ordinarily  known  as  contraband  of  war." 

The  public  declaration  of  the  State  Department  of  the  United  States  of  October  15, 1914,  on  the  subject  of  neutrality 
and  contraband,  gave  the  widest  acceptation  to  the  above  stated  principle. 

In  spite  tliereof,  various  American  port  authorities  have  denied  clearance  from  American  ports  to  vessels  of  the 
merchant  marine  wliich  would  carry  needed  supplies  or  fuel  to  German  warships  either  on  the  high  seas  or  in  other 
neutral  ports. 

According  to  the  principles  of  international  law  above  cited  a  neutral  State  need  not  prevent  furnislung  supplies 
of  this  character;  neither  can  it,  after  allowing  the  adversaries  to  be  furnished  with  contraband,  either  detain  or  in  any 
way  disable  a  merchant  ship  carrying  such  a  cargo.  Only  when  contraband  trade  would  turn  the  ports  into  bases  of 
German  military  operations  would  the  unilateral  stoppage  of  the  trade  of  those  vessels  become  a  duty.  Such,  perhaps, 
would  be  the  case  if  the  Germans  kept  coal  depots  in  the  ports  or  if  the  vessels  called  at  the  port  in  regular  voyages  on 
the  way  to  German  naval  forces.  But  it  stands  to  reason  that  one  merchant  vessel  occasionally  sailing  with  coal  or 
supplies  for  Cierman  warships  does  not  turn  a  neutral  port  into  a  German  point  of  support  contrary  to  neutrality. 

Our  enemies  draw  from  tho  United  States  contraband  of  war,  especially  arms,  worth  several  billions  of  marks. 
This  in  itself  they  are  authorized  to  do.  But  if  the  United  States  will  prevent  our  warships  occasionally  drawing 
BuppUes  from  its  ports,  a  great  injustice  grows  out  of  the  authorization,  for  it  would  amount  to  an  unequal  treatment 
of  the  belligerents  and  constitute  a  breach  of  the  generally  accepted  rules  of  neutrality  to  Germany's  detriment. 


File  No.  763.72111/1203. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  2^,  191^. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  15th  instant 
enclosing,  by  direction  of  your  Government,  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  of  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment on  tho  subject  of  the  delivery  of  coal  and  other  necessaries  to  warships  of  belligerent 
States.  Li  the  course  of  the  momorandum  your  Government  takes  the  o]>i)ortuiiily  to  set  forth 
its  attitude  toward  traffic  in  contraband  of  war  by  citizens  of  neutral  countries.  I  take  note, 
therefore,  of  your  Govermnent's  statement  that  "under  the  general  prlticlples  of  international 
law  no  exception  can  bo  taken  to  neutral  States  letting  war  material  go  to  Germany's  enemies 
from  or  through  neutral  territory,"  and  that  the  adversaries  of  Germany  in  the  present  war  are, 
in  tho  opinion  of  the  Imperial  Government,  authorized  to  "draw  from  the  United  States  contra- 
band of  war,  especially  arms,  worth  several  billions  of  marks."  These  principles,  as  you 
state,  have  been  accepted  by  the  United  States  Government  in  the  statement  issued  by  the 
Department  on  October  15  last,  entitled  "Neutrality  and  Trade  in  Contraband."     Acting  in 


32  NEUTRAT.TTV   VIOI  ATTONS   P.V   WARSnTPS. 

cojiforinily  with  jiropositions  there  sot  I'ortli  tliis  Govcrmncjit  hiis  itself  taken  no  part  in  con- 
traband traffic  and  so  far  as  possible  has  lent  its  influence  toward  equal  treatment  for  all 
belligerents  in  the  matter  of  pmrhasijig  arms  ajul  ammunition  in  the  United  States.  Complaint, 
however,  appears  to  be  made  by  the  Imperial  Gcrnaan  Government  of  the  refusal  of  clearance 
by  American  authorities  to  merchant  vessels  intending  to  furnish  fuel  and  supplies  to  German 
warshij)s  on  the  high  seas  or  in  neutral  ports. 

In  reply  I  desire  to  call  to  your  attention  that  the  GoA-ernment  is  not  aware  that  any 
merchant  vessel  has  been  refused  a  clearance  on  these  grounds  during  the  present  war,  although 
certain  temporary'  detentions  have  been  found  to  be  necessaiy  for  the  purpose  of  investigating 
the  honajides  of  the  alleged  destinations  of  particular  vessels  and  the  mtentions  of  their  o\\Tiers 
or  masters.  This  has  been  done  in  an  effort  to  carry  out  the  principles  of  international  law  and 
the  declaration  of  treaties  with  respect  to  coal  supplies  for  belligerent  warships  and  the  use  of 
neutral  ports  as  bases  of  naval  operations.  iVlthough  as  a  rule  there  is  on  the  part  of  the  nationals 
of  neutral  countries  entire  freedom  of  trade  in  arms,  ammunition,  and  other  articles  of  con- 
traband, nevertheless  the  Imperial  Gennan  Government  will  recall  that  international  law 
and  the  treaties  declaratory  of  its  prmciples  make  a  clear  distinction  between  ordinary  commerce 
m  contraband  of  war  and  the  occasional  furnishing  of  warships  at  sea  or  in  neutral  ports.  In 
this  relation  I  venture  to  advert  to  Ai-ticles  18  to  20,  inclusive,  of  Hague  Convention  No.  1.3, 
1907.  From  these  articles  it  will  be  observed  that  a  warship  which  has  received  fuel  m  a  port 
belonging  to  a  neutral  power  may  not  withm  the  succeeding  tliree  months  replenish  her  supply 
in  a  port  of  the  same  power.  It  is,  I  am  sure,  only  necessary  to  call  5'our  attention  to  these 
articles  to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  if  a  number  of  merchant  vessels  may  at  short  intervals 
leave  neutral  ports  with  cargoes  of  coal  for  transshipment  to  belligerent  warships  at  sea, 
regardless  of  when  the  warships  last  received  fuel  in  the  ports  of  the  same  neutral  power,  the 
conventional  proliibition  would  be  nulhfied,  and  the  three  montlis'  rule  rendered  useless.  By 
such  practice  a  warship  might  remain  on  its  station  engaged  in  belUgerent  operations  without 
the  mconvenience  of  repairing  to  port  for  fuel  supplies. 

Furthermore,  iiilicle  5,  of  the  same  Convention,  forbids  belligerents  to  use  neutral  ports 
and  waters  as  a  base  of  naval  operations  against  their  adversaries.  As  stated  in  the  Depart- 
ment's statement  on  "Merchant  Vessels  Suspected  of  Carrymg  SuppUes  to  Belligerent  Ves- 
sels," dated  September  19  last  (a  copy  of  which  is  enclosed),'  the  essential  idea  of  neutral  terri- 
tory becoming  the  base  for  naval  operations  by  a  beUigerent  is  in  the  opinion  of  tliis  Gov- 
ernment repeated  departure  from  such  territory  of  merchant  vessels  laden  with  fuel  or  other 
supplies  for  belligerent  warships  at  sea.  In  order  to  ascertain  the  vessels  which  are  thus 
operating,  the  Government  has  been  obliged  to  investigate  certain  cases  in  order  that  it  might 
determine  whether  there  have  been  or  are  al)out  to  be  repetitions  of  such  acts.  But  in  all 
respects  equality  of  treatment  has  been  observed  toward  all  merchant  vessels  suspected  of 
carrying  supplies  to  belligerent  vessels. 

It  is  hardh'  necessary  to  recount  in  this  note  the  provisions  of  the  Hague  Conventions  in 
regard  to  the  fitting  out  or  arming  of  vessels  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  neutral  power,  or  the 
stipulations  in  the  same  Conventions  regarding  the  departure  of  vessels  intended  to  cruise  or 
engage  m  hostile  operations  which  have  been  adopted  entirely,  or  in  part,  for  such  use  within 
neutral  jurisdiction.  To  the  extent  of  these  restrictions  the  furuishuig  of  munitions  of  war 
included  in  absolute  contraband  is  proliibited  m  neutral  waters,  and  therefore  should  not  be 
permitted  indirectly  by  means  of  naval  tenders,  or  merchant  vessels  acting  as  tenders,  car- 
rying such  materials  from  a  neutral  jurisdiction  to  belligerent  wai-ships  at  sea. 

It  is  not  necessary  in  fiu-ther  reply  to  the  memorandum  of  the  Imperial  German  Govern- 
ment to  advert  in  detail  to  other  provisions  of  the  Hague  Conventions  or  to  other  ndes  of 
international  law,  for  no  particidar  cases  have  been  adduced  as  a  gromid  for  yoirr  Government's 
complaint.  If,  however,  they  wdl  specify  the  vessels  which  they  must  have  in  mind  as  having 
boon  accorded  luiequal  treatment,  the  Department  wiU  be  glad  to  give  further  consideration  to 
the  memorandum  of  j^om-  Government  in  the  light  of  actual  facts.  It  is  then  sufficient  to  say 
for  the  present  that  in  the  pursuance  of  the  policy  to  carry  out  the  principles  above  referred  to, 
which  is  part  of  the  progi'am  of  this  Government  to  preserve  and  maintain  the  neutrality  of 
the  United  States,  aU  merchant  vessels  suspected  of  caiTying  sui)phes  to  ])elligorent  warships 
at  sea  have  been  subjected,  and  wiU  continue  to  bo  subjected,  to  mixemitting  and  painstaking 
investigation.  Such  action  can  not,  it  is  believed,  1)0  fairly  taken  to  amoiuit  to  "unequal 
treatment  of  the  beUigcrents  and  constitute  a  breach  of  the  generally  accoiited  rules  of  neutrahty 
to  Germany's  detriment." 

Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 

1  See  Part  IV,  p.  44. 


NEUTRALITY   VIOLATIONS   BY   WARSHIPS.  33 

File  No.  763.72111/1942. 

Tlie  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

British  Embassy, 

Washington,  March  2^th,  1916. 
Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  Refen-ing   to   unofficial  correspondence  wliich  has  taken  place 
concerning  the  British  cruisers  in  the  North  Atlantic,  I  beg  to  state  that  renewed  orders  have 
been  issued  impressing  on  Ills  Majesty's  Oflicers  the  duty  of  strictly  observing  the  terms  of 
the  United  States  neutrality  regulations. 
I  am,  etc., 

Cecil  Spuing-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/1942. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  March  27, 1915. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  I  have  received  your  informal  note  of  tlie  24th  instant  con- 
cerning the  observance  of  the  American  neutrality  regulations  by  the  British  cruisers  in  the 
North  Atlantic.  In  this  relation  I  desire  to  call  to  your  attention  certain  information  which 
has  come  to  my  notice  with  reference  to  the  operations  of  belligerent  cruisers  in  the  North 
Pacific.  I  have  been  reliably  informed  that  several  times  during  the  past  winter  belligerent 
ships  of  war  have  taken  on  coal,  and  perhaps  other  supphes,  within  the  territorial  waters  of 
the  United  States  in  the  vicinity  of  the  islands  off  the  Santa  Barbara  channel,  southern  Cali- 
fornia, and  have  had  communication  with  the  mauiland  in  this  locality.  One  circumstance  in 
particular  occmred,  according  to  my  information,  on  the  27th  of  February  last,  when  the 
British  steamship  Bellerophon,  of  Liverpool,  coaled  the  British  cruiser  Rainbow  within  a  mile 
of  the  wes^jcrn  shore  of  Anacapa  Island.  It  appears  that  at  the  same  time  a  launch  left  the 
vicinity  of  Huencme,  Cal.,  and  commmiicated  with  the  vessels  above  mentioned.  I  should 
appreciate  the  kindness  if  you  will  bring  this  matter  informally  to  the  attention  of  your  Govern- 
ment, and,  if  the  facts,  upon  examination,  prove  to  be  as  represented,  request  your  Government 
to  issue  such  instructions  to  their  fleet  as  will  make  a  recurrence  of  such  violations  of  the  neu- 
trality of  the  territorial  waters  of  the  United  States  impossible. 
I  am,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/1892. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

British  Embassy, 

Washington,  March  29,  1915. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  I  beg  to  acknowledge  your  mformal  letter  of  the  27th  instant, 
in  which  you  bring  to  my  attention  certain  information  in  your  possession  relative  to  the  opera- 
tions of  British  warships  in  the  Pacific  and  in  particular  the  report  that  the  British  steamship 
Bellerophon  coaled  His  Majesty's  Ship  Rainbow  on  the  27th  of  February  within  a  mUe  of  Anacapa 
Island. 

I  am  bringing  this  matter  at  once  to  the  attention  of  my  Government  and  shall  take  pleasure 
in  communicating  further  with  you  upon  the  subject  as  soon  as  I  am  in  a  position  to  do  so. 
I  am,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/1966. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Counselor. 


British  Embassy, 
Washington,  April  5th,  1915. 
Dear  Mr.  Counselor:  In  view  of  rumours  circulated  in  the  German  press  as  to  British 
cruisers  systematically  provisioning  themselves  from  United   States   territory — notably  New 
York — I  beg  to  quote  for  j^our  information  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  the  Admiral 
in  Command  of  the  North  American  Station  dated  March  26 : 

Except  on  the  one  occasion  in  September  la.st,  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  complaint  referred  to  in  your  telegrani,  I 
am  sati.sfied  that  no  attempt  lias  been  made  to  order  aaythlng  from  United  States  territory,  and  I  would  point  out 
that  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  provisioning  of  His  Majesty's  ehips  off  New  York  is  rendered  quite  unnecessary  by 
455C°— 15 3 


34  NEUTRAUTY  VIOLATIONS  BY  WARSHIPS. 

their  being  regularly  relieved,  the  obtaining  of  supplies  in  such  a  manner  is  open  to  two  strong  objections  from  a  naval 
point  of  view,  viz: 

(1)  The  amount  of  provisions  required  to  be  of  any  use  would  be  so  large  that  they  could  hardly  l)e  embarked 
undetected,  and  it  would  take  a  considerable  time  to  transfer  them  at  sea. 

(2)  In  wintry  weather  such  a  transfer  would  often  be  a  matter  of  difficulty  and  not  worth  the  risk  to  men  and  boats. 
I  can  not  but  think  the  United  States  Navy  Department  are  alive  to  these  considerations. 

I  am,  etc., 

Cecil  Speingi-Rice. 


PART  IV. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMAMENT  AND  THE  RIGHT  OF  DEPARTURE   FROM  NEUTRAL  PORTS 
OF  BELLIGERENT  MERCHANT  SHIPS  TO  ARM  AT  SEA. 


35 


DEFENSIVE  ARMAMENT  AND  THE  RIGHT  OF  DEPARTURE  FROM  NEUTRAL 
PORTS  OF  BELLIGERENT  MERCHANT  SHIPS  TO  ARM  AT  SEA. 


File  No.  763.72111/85. 

The  British  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  252.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  August  4,  1914. 

Sir:  In  view  of  the  stato  of  war  now  existing  between  Great  Britain  and  Germajiy,  I  have 
the  honour,  under  iastruetions  from  His  Majesty's  Principal  vSecretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  make  the  following  communication  to  you  in  respect  to  the  arming  of  any  merchant 
vessels  in  neutral  waters. 

As  you  are  aware  it  is  recognized  that  a  neutral  Government  is  bound  to  use  due  diligence 
to  proliihit  its  subjects  or  citizens  from  the  building  and  fitting  out  to  order  of  belligerents  vessels 
intended  for  warlike  purposes  and  also  to  prevent  the  departure  of  any  such  A'essel  from  its 
jurisdiction,  llio  starting  point  for  the  universal  recognition  of  this  principle  was  the  three 
rules  formulated  in  Article  VI  of  the  Treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of 
America  for  the  amicable  settlement  of  all  causes  of  differences  between  the  two  countries, 
signed  at  Washington  on  May  8,  1871.  These  rules,  which  His  Majesty's  Government  and  the 
United  States  Government  agreed  to  observe  as  between  themselves  in  future,  are  as  follows: 

A  neutral  Government  is  bound — 

First.  To  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  the  fitting  out,  arming,  or  equipping,  -within  its  jurisdiction,  of  any  vessel 
which  it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is  intended  to  cruise  or  to  carry  on  war  against  a  Power  with  which  it  is  at 
peace;  and  also  to  use  like  diligence  to  prevent  the  departure  from  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or 
carry  on  war  as  above,  such  vessel  having  been  specially  adapted,  in  whole  or  in  part,  within  such  jurisdiction  to 
warlike  use. 

Secondly.  Not  to  permit  or  suffer  either  belligerent  to  make  use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  the  base  of  naval  operations 
against  the  other,  or  for  the  purpose  of  the  renewal  or  augmentation  of  military  supplies  or  arms,  or  the  recruitment 
of  men. 

Thirdly.  To  exercise  due  diligence  in  [its  own  ports  and  waters,  and,  as  to  all  persons  within  its  juri.sdiction, 
to  prevent  any  violation  of  the  foregoing  obligations  and  duties. 

The  above  rules  may  be  said  to  have  acquired  the  force  of  generally  recognized  rules  of 
International  Law,  and  the  first  of  them  is  reproduced  almost  textuaUy  in  Article  VIII  of  The 
Hague  Convention  Numl)cr  13  of  1907  concerning  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutral  Powers  in 
case  of  Maritime  Warfare,  the  principles  of  which  have  been  agreed  to  by  practically  every 
maritime  State. 

It  is  known,  however,  that  Germany,  with  whom  Great  Britain  is  at  war,  favours  the  policy 
of  converting  her  merchant  vessels  into  armed  ships  on  the  High  Seas,  and  it  is  probable,  there- 
fore, that  attempts  wUl  ])e  made  to  equip  and  despatch  merchantmen  for  such  conversion  from 
the  ports  of  the  United  vStates. 

It  is  probable  that,  even  if  the  final  completion  of  the  measures  to  fit  out  merchantmen  to 
act  as  crusiers  may  have  to  be  effected  on  the  High  Seas,  most  of  the  preliminary  arrangements 
will  have  been  made  before  the  vessels  leave  port,  so  that  the  warlike  purpose  to  which  they  are 
to  be  put  after  leaving  neutral  waters  must  be  more  or  less  manifest  before  their  departure. 

In  calling  your  attention  to  the  above  mentioned  "Rules  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington" 
and  The  Hague  Convention,  I  have  the  honour  to  state  that  His  Majesty's  Government  will 
accordingly  hold  the  United  States  Government  responsible  for  any  damages  to  British  trade  or 
shipping,  or  itijin-y  to  British  interests  generally,  which  may  be  caused  by  such  vessels  having 
been  equipped  at,  or  departing  from.  United  States  ports. 
I  have,  etc., 

CoLviLLE  Barclay. 


File  No.  763.72111/87. 

The  British  Charge  d' Affaires  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  259.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  August  9,  1914. 
Sir:  With  reference  to  my  note  No.  252  of  the  4th  instant,  I  have  the  honour  to  inform 
you  that  I  have  now  received  instructions  from  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  make  a  further  communi- 
cation  to  you  in  explanation  of  the  position  taken  by  His  Majesty's  Government  in  regard  to  the 
question  of  armed  merchantmen. 

37 


38  DEFENSIVE    ARMAMENT. 

As  you  are  no  doubt  aware,  a  certain  number  of  British  merchant  vessels  are  armed,  but 
this  is  a  precautionary  measure  adopted  solely  for  tlie  purpose  of  defence,  which,  under  existing 
rules  of  international  law,  is  the  right  of  all  merchant  vessels  w^hen  attacked. 

According  to  the  British  nile,  British  merchant  vessels  can  not  be  converted  into  men-of-war 
in  any  foreign  port,  for  the  reason  that  Great  Britain  does  not  admit  the  right  of  any  Power  to 
do  this  on  the  High  Seas.  The  duty  of  a  neutral  to  intern  or  order  the  immediate  departure  of 
belligerent  vessels  is  limited  to  actual  and  potential  men-of-war,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  His 
Majesty's  Government,  there  can  therefore  be  no  right  on  the  part  of  neutral  Governments  to 
intern  British  armed  merchant  vessels,  which  can  not  be  converted  into  men-of-war  on  the 
High  Seas,  nor  to  require  them  to  land  their  guns  before  proceeding  to  sea. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  German  Government  have  consistently  claimed  the  right  of  conver- 
sion on  the  High  Seas,  and  His  Majesty's  Government  therefore  maintain  their  claim  that 
vessels  which  are  adapted  for  conversion  and  under  German  rules  may  be  converted  into  men-of- 
war  on  the  High  Seas  should  be  interned  in  the  absence  of  binding  assurances,  the  responsi- 
bility for  which  must  be  assumed  by  the  neutral  Government  concerned,  that  they  shall  not  be 
so  converted. 

I  have,  etc., 

CoLviLLE  Barclay. 


FUe  No.  763.72111/543. 

The  British  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  264.]  British  Embassy, 

Wasltington,  August  12,  1914. 
Sir  :  With  reference  to  my  notes  Nos.  252  and  259  of  August  4  and  August  9,  respectively, 
stating  and  explainmg  the  position  taken  up  by  His  Majesty's  Government  in  regard  to  the 
question  of  armed  merchantmen,  I  have  the  honour  to  state  that  I  have  now  been  informed  by 
Sir  Edward  Grey  that  exactly  similar  histructions  were  at  the  same  time  issued  by  him  to 
His  Majesty's  representatives  m  practically  all  neutral  countries  to  address  the  same  commu- 
nications to  the  respective  Governments  to  which  they  were  accredited. 
I  have,  etc., 

CoLviLLE  Barclay. 


File  No.  763.  72111/85. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Charge  cf  Affaires. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  19, 1914. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communication  Xo.  252  of  the 
4th  instant,  which  was  made  to  this  Government  in  pursuance  of  instructions  from  His  Majesty's 
Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  with  respect  to  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels 
in  neutral  waters. 

Tlie  commimication  states  the  principles  of  neutraJity,  as  contained  m  the  treaty  signed 
at  Washington  on  May  8,  1871,  by  representatives  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
and  reproduced,  as  you  say,  almost  textually  in  Article  YIII  of  Tlie  Hague  Convention,  signed 
October  18,  1907,  concerning  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutral  Powers  in  case  of  Maritime 
Warfare,  the  principles  of  which  have  been,  as  you  state,  agreed  to  by  practically  every  maritime 
power. 

The  communication  next  considers  the  question  of  conversion  of  enemy  merchantmen 
on  the  high  seas,  a  policy  which  your  Government  opposes.  It  is  then  stated  that  Germany 
favoi-s  the  pohcy  of  conversion;  that  it  will  probably  attempt  to  use  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  to  equip  and  despatch  merchantmen  for  conversion  from  such  ports;  and  that  most  of 
the  prehminary  arrangements  leading  to  conversion  will  have  to  be  made  withm  neutral  ports 
before  the  vessels  proceed  to  the  high  sejis  to  complete  their  transformation  mto  vessels  of  war. 

The  purpose  of  the  communication  is  apparently  to  lay  dowai  the  principles  of  law  which 
your  Government  beheve  should  be  applied  by  the  United  States  in  fulfiUiug  its  neutral  obh- 
gations,  especially  m  the  matter  of  conversion  of  merchant  vessels  into  wju*  vessels,  and,  assum- 
ing these  principles  to  be  correct,  to  tax  this  Government  with  damages  to  British  trade  or 
shipping,  or  injury  to  British  interests  generally,  if  these  prmciples,  the  correctness  of  which 
you  assume,  are  not  appUed  to  German  merchant  vessels  '"equipped  at,  or  departhig  from. 
United  States  ports." 

In  a(;knowledging  this  communication,  it  does  not  seem  appropriate  to  enter  into  any  dis- 
cussion as  to  what  may  or  what  may  not  be  the  pohcy  of  Germany  in  the  matter  of  converting 


DEFENSIVE    ARMAMENT.  39 

its  merchant  ships,  which  may  bo  within  the  jurisdiction  of  tho  United  States,  into  ships  of  war 
after  they  have  loft  American  ports  and  have  reached  tlie  high  seas.  The  assertion  of  the 
right  so  to  coTivort  morcliant  sliips  upon  the  high  seas,  made  by  Gennany  at  Tho  Second  Hague 
Conference  and  maintained  at  the  Loudon  Naval  Conference,  does  not  of  itself  indicate  an  inten- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Gennan  Govoriunont  to  exercise  this  right,  and  this  Department  does 
not  feel  justified  in  its  correspoudonco  with  foreign  govi^niinents,  to  assume,  in  the  absence  of 
specific  uiformation,  an  intention  on  tho  part  of  Germany  so  to  do.  Tlie  Department  will, 
however,  carefully  examine  the  facts  and  'circumstances  of  any  particular  case  when  it  is  called 
to  its  attention. 

Tlie  question  of  the  place  where  the  belligerent  right  of  conversion  ma)'  bo  exercised, 
difficult  in  itself,  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  there  has  been  a  difTerence  of  opinion  among 
the  maritime  states  parties  to  the  present  war,  luul  that  at  tlio  conferences,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  the  British  delegatit)n  stated  that  tliero  was  no  rule  of  uaternational  law  on 
the  question.  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary  insisted  at  the  conferences  upon  the  right  to 
convert  merchant  vessels  upon  the  high  seas.  France  juid  Russia,  allies  of  Great  Britain  m 
the  present  war,  likewise  insistetl  upon  the  right  so  to  convert.  Great  Britam  and  Belgium 
intimately  associated  with  France  and  Russia  in  the  prosecution  of  hostilities  against  Germany 
and  Austria-Hungary,  opposed  the  right  of  conversion  on  the  high  seas  at  Tlie  Second  Hague 
Conference,  where  both  these  nations  were  represented;  and  at  the  London  Naval  Conference, 
to  which  Belgium  was  not  invited  and  in  which  it  did  not  participate.  Great  Britain  maintained 
its  previous  attitude.  It  is  thus  seen  that  the  right  to  convert  merchant  vessels  upon  the  high 
seas  was  asserted  in  international  conferences  by  four  of  the  maritime  countries  now  at  war 
and  that  two  of  the  maritime  nations  now  at  war  opposed  this  contention.  It  is  further  seen 
that  the  maritime  nations  at  war  with  Gennany  and  Austria-Hungary  are  evenly  divided  on 
this  question. 

At  Tlie  Second  Hague  Conference,  the  British  delegation,  opposing  conversion  on  the  high 
seas,  stated  that  there  was  no  rule  of  international  law  on  the  question;  that  in  its  carefully 
prepared  memorandum  presented  to  the  Powers  invited  to  the  London  Naval  Conferejice,  the 
British  Government  held  that  "no  general  practice  of  nations  has  prevailed  in  the  past  on 
this  point  from  which  any  principles  can  be  deduced  and  formulated  as  the  established  rules 
of  international  law.     So  far  as  can  be  ascertained  there  are  no  precedents  on  the  subject." 

In  the  official  report  of  the  conference,  drafted  by  Mr.  Renault,  it  is  stated  that  agreement 
on  conversion  upon  the  high  seas  was  impossible;  and,  in  the  report  of  the  British  delegates  to 
their  Government,  it  is  said : 

We  were  met  with  a  refu.sal  to  make  any  concessions  or  to  abate  one  jot  from  the  claim  to  the  absolutely  unfettered 
exercise  of  the  right,  wliich  its  advocates  vijidicate  as  a  rule  forming  part  of  the  existing  law  of  nations.  In  these 
circumstances  we  felt  that  we  liad  no  option  but  to  decUne  to  admit  the  right,  and  the  result  is  tliat  the  question 
remains  an  open  one. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  subject  of  conversion  must  be  carefully  examined  and  considered, 
and,  in  view  of  these  circumstances,  it  is  deemed  by  the  Department  of  State  inexpedient  to 
declare  a  policy  as  to  what  measures  it  wUl  take  iii  a  contingency  which  has  not  yet  arisen, 
and  that  it  may  well  content  itself,  in  so  far  as  this  matter  is  concerned,  with  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  your  note. 

In  the  com-se  of  yoiir  communication  it  is  stated  as  recognized  "  that  a  neutral  Government 
is  bomid  to  use  due  diligence  to  prohibit  its  subjects  or  citizens  from  the  building  or  fitting  out 
to  the  order  of  belligerents  vessels  intended  for  warlike  purposes  and  also  to  prevent  the  departure 
of  such  vessels  from  its  jurisdiction."  It  is  asserted  in  this  connection  that  "the  starting 
point  for  the  universal  recognition  of  this  principle  was  the  three  rules  formtdatod  in  Article 
VI  of  the  Treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  amicable 
settlement  of  all  causes  of  difference  between  the  two  coimtries,  signed  at  Wasliington  on  May 
8,  187L"     After  quoting  the  Three  Rides  of  Washington,  the  note  thus  contmues: 

The  above  rules  may  be  said  to  liave  acquired  the  force  of  generally  recognized  rules  of  international  law,  and 
the  first  of  them  is  reproduced  almost  textually  in  Article  VIII  of  the  Hague  Convention  Nimiber  13  of  1907  concerning 
the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutral  Powers  in  case  of  maritime  warfare,  the  principles  of  which  have  been  agreed  to  by 
practically  e\cry  maritime  State. 

As  the  communication  apparently  lays  great  stress  on  the  expr&ssion  "due  dihgence," 
contained  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  it  is  believed  material  to  the  present  occasion  to  quote 
the  folloMnng  defhiition  of  it,  contauied  in  the  Geneva  Award  of  1872: 

Tlie  "due  diligence  "  referred  to  in  the  first  and  third  of  the  said  rules  ought  to  bo  exercised  by  neutral  Govern- 
ments in  exact  pro[)ortinn  to  tlie  risks  to  which  either  of  tlie  belligerents  may  be  exposed,  from  a  failure  to  fulfill  the 
obUgadous  of  neutrality  on  their  part. 


40  DEFENSIVE   ARMAMENT. 

Tho  expression  "duo  diligence"  was  contained  in  the  draft  submitted  l)y  the  British 
delegation  to  Tlio  Second  Hague  Conference,  upon  whi<;h  Article  VIII  was  based.  Article 
VIII  as  finally  adopted  is  as  follows: 

Article  VIII. 

A  neutral  Government  is  bound  to  employ  tho  means  at  its  disposal  to  prevent  tlie  fitting  out  or  arming  of  any 
vessel  within  its  jurisdiction  wliich  it  has  reason  to  believe  is  intended  to  cniL*e,  or  engage  in  hostile,  operations  against 
a  Power  with  wliicli  tliat  Government  is  at  peace.  It  is  alao  bound  to  display  the  same  vigilance  to  prevent  the 
departure  from  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise,  or  engage  in  hostile  operations,  which  liad  been  adapted 
entirely  or  partly  witlnin  tlie  said  jurisdiction  for  use  in  war. 

As  the  expression  "due  diligence"  was  considered  obscure,  it  was  rejected,  as  the  learned 
reporter  of  the  convention,  Mr.  Louis  Renault,  says  in  the  elaborate  report  which  accompanies 
the  convention,  and  which  is,  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  international  conferences,  to 
be  considered  as  the  official  and  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  convention  which  it  explains, 
justifies,  and  interprets.  "The  expression  of  due  diligence,"  he  says,  "which  has  become  cele- 
brated by  its  obscurity  since  its  solenui  interpretation,  was  rejected.  The  convention  merely 
requires  in  the  first  instance  (On  se  contente  de  dire  d'dbord)  that  the  neutral  is  hound  to  employ 
the  means  at  its  disposal    *     *     *     then,  to  display  the  same  vigilance." 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Article  VIII  which  "reproduced  almost  textually"  the  first  rule 
of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  in  which  Mr.  Renault's  report 
shows  it  to  have  been  adopted,  especially  as  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  have  ratified 
the  convention  without  any  objection  or  reservation  as  to  Article  VIII  thereof. 

It  seems  obvious  therefore  that  by  neither  the  terms  nor  the  interpretation  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  treaties  on  this  point  is  the  United  States  bound  to  assume  the  attitude  of  an 
insurer.  Consequently  the  United  States  disclaims  as  a  correct  statement  of  its  responsibihty 
the  assertion  in  your  note  that  "His  Majesty's  Government  wiU  accordingly  hold  the  United 
States  Government  responsible  for  any  damages  to  British  trade  or  shipping,  or  injury  to 
British  interests  generally,  which  may  be  caused  by  such  vessels  having  been  equipped  at,  or 
departing  from,  United  States  ports." 

The  United  States  has  always  looked  upon  the  Three  Rules  of  Washington  as  declaratory 
of  international  law,  and  as  the  necessary  and  natural  consequences  of  the  doctrine  of  neutrality, 
proclaimed  and  enforced  by  the  United  States  since  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution,  to 
which  Great  Britam  was  a  party.  The  Three  Rules  can,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Government, 
only  be  considered  as  the  starting  point  of  the  doctrine  of  that  degree  of  diUgence  which  a 
neutral  should  observe  in  the  sense  that  its  recognition  by  Great  Britain  in  an  important  inter- 
national controversy  called  marked  attention  to  an  existing  doctrine,  and  fiu"nished  an  incentive 
to  its  incorporation  and  definition  in  the  Hague  Convention  concerning  the  Rights  and  Duties 
of  Neutral  Powers  in  case  of  maritime  warfare. 

The  United  States,  since  the  earliest  days  of  its  existence,  has  been  as  solicitous  of  its 
neutral  duties  as  of  its  neutral  rights,  and,  without  further  consideration  of  your  communication 
at  this  time  I  request  you  to  state  to  your  Government  that  there  is  no  reason  to  anticipate 
that  the  United  States  will  be  less  mindful  of  its  duties  or  of  its  rights  as  a  neutral  m  the  present 
case  than  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

I  have,  etc.,  W.  J.  Bkyan. 


File  No.  763.72111/87. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Charge. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  20,  1914- 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communication  No.  259  of  the 
9th  instant,  made  to  the  Department  of  State  under  instructions  from  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in 
regard  to  the  question  of  armed  merchantmen,  informing  this  Government  that  a  certain 
number  of  the  British  merchant  vessels  are  armed  as  a  precautionary  measure  for  the  purpose 
of  defense,  and  maintaining  that  such  merchant  vessels  can  not  be  considered  as  vessels  of 
war  or  subjected  to  the  treatment  properly  accorded  to  vessels  of  the  latter  category  in  neutral 
ports. 

In  the  last  paragraph  of  this  communication,  you  call  attention  to  the  right  claimed  by 
the  German  Government,  in  accordance  with  its  rules,  to  convert  its  merchant  vessels  upon 
the  high  seas  into  vessels  of  war,  and  the  communication  states  the  contention  of  the  British 
Government  that  the  neutral  Government  concerned  is  taxed  with  responsibihty  if  it  does  not 
intern  such  vessels,  in  the  absence  of  binding  assurances  that  they  will  not  be  converted  into 
men-of-war  on  the  high  seas. 


DEFENSIVE   ARMAMENT.  41 

Tlie  Department  of  State  acknowledges  williout  commont  the  statement  of  British  policy 

in  such  niattera  and  also  the  British  understanding  of  Germany's  intentions  and  ])oIicy,  but  as 

to  the  responsibility  of  the  United  States  in  the  premises,  you  are  referred  to  Department's 

note  of  the  19th  instant  replying  to  your  note  No.  252  of  the  4th  instant. 

I  have,  etc. 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/88. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  289.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  August  25,  1914. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  Mi-.  Barclay's  notes  Nos.  252  and  259  of  the  4th  and  9th  of  August, 
respectively,  fully  explaining  the  position  taken  up  by  His  Majesty's  Government  in  regard  to 
the  question  of  armed  merchantmen,  I  have  the  honour,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  num})or  of 
British  armed  merchantmen  will  now  be  visiting  United  States  ports,  to  reiterate  that  the 
arming  of  British  merchantmen  is  solely  a  precautionary  measure  adopted  for  the  purpose  of 
defence  against  attack  from  hostile  craft. 

I  have  at  the  same  time  been  instructed  by  His  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs  to  give  the  United  States  Government  the  fullest  assurances  that  British  mer- 
chant vessels  will  never  be  used  for  purposes  of  attack,  that  they  are  merely  peaceful  traders 
armed  only  for  defence,  that  they  will  never  fire  unless  first  fired  upon,  and  that  they  will 
never  under  any  circumstances  attack  any  vessel. 

I  have,  etc. 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/88. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

yVasMngton,  August  29,  1914- 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  25th  instant 
in  which,  referring  to  previous  correspondence,  you  state  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  number 
of  Britisli  armed  merchantmen  will  now  be  visiting  United  States  ports,  you  desirei  to  reiterate 
that  the  arming  of  British  merchantmen  is  solely  a  precautionary  measure  adopted  for  the 
purpose  of  defence  against  attack  from  hostile  craft.  You  add  that  you  have  been  instructed 
by  His  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  give  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  the  fullest  assurances  that  British  merchant  vessels  will  never  bo  used  for  pur- 
poses of  attack,  that  they  are  merely  peaceful  traders  armed  only  for  defence,  that  they  will 
never  fire  unless  first  fired  upon,  and  that  they  will  never  imder  any  circumstances  attack  any 
vessel. 

I  have,  etc. 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


File  No.  763.72111/144. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  302.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  September  4,  1914. 
■  Sir:  I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  at  the  request  of  your  Department  I  drew 
the  attention  of  my  Government  to  tlio  fact  that  two  British  merchant  vessels — the  Adriatic 
and  the  Meirion — were  at  present  in  United  States  ports,  and  that  they  were  carrying  guns — 
the  former  four  and  the  latter  six.  I  added  that  the  fact  of  these  vessels  carrying  guris  was 
Ukely  to  lead  to  the  raising  of  difficult  questions  as  to  the  enforcement  by  the  United  States 
Government  of  the  neutrality  of  American  ports,  although  an  assurance  had  been  given  that 
these  gims  would  only  be  used  for  defensive  purposes  and  in  case  the  merchant  vessels  in  ques- 
tion were  attacked  by  an  enemy  ship  when  on  a  commercial  voyage. 

I  have  now  received  a  reply  from  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in  which  he  infoims  me  that  His  Majest/s 
Govenunent  hold  the  view  that  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  neutrality  and  international  law 
to  detain  in  neutral  ports  merchant  vessels  armed  with  purely  defensive  armaments.  But  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  United  States  Government  is  detaining  armed  merchant  vessels  pre- 
pared for  offensive  warfare,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  difiicult  questions  of  the  character  and 
degree  of  armament  which  would  justify  detention,  His  Majesty's  Government  have  made 


42  DEFENSIVE   ARMAMENT. 

arrangements  for  landing  tlio  guns  of  the  Merrion,  the  Adr^tic  having  already  sailed  before  the 
orders  reached  her.  In  the  case  of  the  latter  ship,  the  passenger  list  and  cargo  had  proved 
that  she  was  proceeding  to  sea  on  ordinary  cijmmcrcial  business.  These  and  other  papers 
relative  to  the  case  will  bo  duly  communicated  to  your  Department. 

This  action  has  been  taken  without  prejudice  to  the  general  principle  wliich  His  Majesty's 
Govenmient  have  enunciated  and  to  which  they  adhere. 

It  is  presumed  that  no  objection  will  be  raised  by  your  Government  to  the  guns  being 
shipped  subsequently  to  England  as  cargo  in  some  vessel  without  mountings  or  ammunition. 
I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/156. 

Memorandum  from  the  British  Embassy. 

British  Embassy, 

Washington,  September  7,  1914- 
The  British  Ambassador  presents  his  compliments  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States  and,  with  reference  to  his  note  No.  302  of  September  4,  has  the  honour  to  state  that  he 
is  informed  by  the  British  Consid  General  that  the  steamship  Adriatic,  which  sailed  from  New 
York  on  September  3  with  four  guns  mounted  and  200  rounds  of  ammunition,  took  28  first- 
class  passengers,  43  second,  and  89  third.  She  also  took  637  bags  of  mail  and  a  general  cargo 
of  provisions  and  manufactured  goods.  She  had  no  war  material  on  board  and  no  army 
reservists. 

These  data  bear  out  the  assurances  that  the  Adriatic  is  bound  on  a  peaceful  commercial 
voyage  and  that  her  armament  is  dsstined  solely  for  defensive  purposes. 


File  No.  763.72111/410. 

Memorandum  from  the  British  Embassy. 

British  Embassy, 

Washington,  September  9,  1914. 

The  German  Government  have  openly  entered  upon  the  policy  of  arming  merchant  ships 
as  commerce  destroyers  and  even  claim  the  right  to  carry  out  the  process  of  arming  and  equip- 
ping such  merchant  ships  in  neutral  harbours  or  on  the  high  seas.  It  is  in  consequence  of  tliis 
that  the  British  Admiralty  have  been  compelled,  in  accordance  with  the  practice  followed  in 
the  great  wars  of  history,  to  arm  a  certain  number  of  British  merchant  ships  for  self-defence  only. 

The  practice  of  arming  ships  in  self-defence  is  very  old  and  has  been  ordered  by  Royal 
proclamation  in  England  from  early  in  the  seventeenth  century.  During  the  Napoleonic  wars 
the  right  to  arm  in  self-defence  was  recognized  by  British  and  United  States  Prize  Courts  in 
the  cases  of  the  Catherine  Elizabeth  (British)  and  the  Nereide  (United  States).  The  right  of  a 
merchant  ship  of  a  belligerent  to  carry  arms  and  resist  capture  is  clearly  and  definitely  laid 
down  in  modern  times.  The  right  of  resistance  of  merchant  vessels  is  recognized  by  the  United 
States  Naval  War  Code,  by  the  Italian  Code  for  Mercantile  Marine,  and  by  the  Russian  Prize 
Regulations.  Writers  of  authority  in  many  European  countries  also  recognize  the  right.  To 
mention  a  German  authority,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  late  Dr.  Perels,  at  one  time  legal  adviser 
to  the  German  Admiralty,  quotes  with  approval  Article  10  of  the  United  States  Naval  War 
Code,  wliich  states  "the  prisoners  of  merchant  vessels  of  an  enemy  who  in  self-defence  and  in 
protection  of  the  vessel  placed  in  their  charge  resist  an  attack,  are  entitled  to  the  status  of 
prisoners  of  war."  The  Institute  of  International  Law  at  its  meeting  in  1913  prepared  and 
adopted  a  manual  of  the  laws  of  naval  warfare,  Article  10  of  which  expressly  declared  that  private 
ships  are  allowed  to  employ  force  to  defend  themselves  against  the  attack  of  an  enemy's  ship. 

A  merchant  vessel  armed  purely  for  seK-defence  is  therefore  entitled  under  international 
law  to  enjoy  the  status  of  a  peaceful  trading  ship  in  neutral  ports  and  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment do  not  ask  for  better  treatment  for  British  merchant  ships  in  this  respect  than  might  be 
accorded  to  those  of  other  Powers.  They  consider  that  only  those  merchant  ships  which  are 
intended  for  use  as  cruisers  should  bo  treated  as  ships  of  war  and  that  the  question  whether  a 
particular  ship  carrying  an  armament  is  intended  for  offensive  or  defensive  action  must  be 
decided  by  the  simple  criterion  whether  she  is  engaged  in  ordinary  commerce  and  embarking 
cargo  and  passengers  in  the  ordinary  way.  If  so,  there  is  no  rule  in  international  law  that 
would  justify  such  vessel  even  if  armed  being  treated  otherwise  than  as  a  peaceful  trader. 


DEFENSIVE  ARMAMENT.  43 

File  No.  763.72111/411. 

Memorandum  from  the  British  Emhassy. 

British  Embassy, 

Washington,  September  9,  191Jf. 

In  a  memorandum  of  to-day's  date  the  British  Ambassador  has  set  forth  the  groands  upon 
which  His  Majostj^'s  Government  hokl  that  British  merchant  vessels  which  arc  armed  for 
defensive  purposes  only  iire  entitled  to  bo  treated  as  peaceful  trading  vessels. 

In  urging  this  view  upon  the  consideration  of  the  United  States  Government  the  British 
Ambassador  is  instructed  to  state  that  it  is  believed  that  German  merchant  vessels  with  offen- 
sive armament  have  escaped  from  American  ports,  especially  from  ports  in  South  America  to 
prey  upon  British  commerce  in  spite  of  all  the  precautions  taken.  German  cruisers  in  the 
Atlantic  continue  by  one  means  or  another  to  obtain  ample  supphes  of  coal  shipped  to  them 
from  neutral  ports,  and  if  the  United  States  Government  take  the  view  that  British  merchant 
vessels  which  are  bona  fide  engaged  in  commerce  and  carry  guns  at  the  stern  only  are  not  per- 
mitted purely  defensive  armament,  unavoidal:)le  injury  may  ensue  to  British  interests  and 
indirectly  also  to  United  States  trade  which  wdl  bo  deplorable. 


File  No.  763.72111/226a. 

Tlie  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador.^ 

Department  of  State, 
WasMngton,  September  19,  1914. 
Dear  Mr.  ^Vmbassador:  I  am  inclosing  for  your  information  two  memoranda,  which  the 
Department  b.as  issued  to-day  and  which  define  the  general  rules  which  this  Government  wiU 
follow  in  deahng  with  cases  involving  the  status  of  armed  merchant  vessels  visiting  American 
ports,  and  with  cases  of  merchant  vessels  suspected  of  carrying  supphes  to  bcUigerent  warships 
from  American  ports. 
I  am,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


[Inclosure  1.] 
THE    STATUS   OF  ARMED   MERCHANT  VESSELS. 

A.  A  merchant  vessel  of  belligerent  nationalily  may  carry  an  armament  and  ammunition  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
defense  without  acquiring  the  character  of  a  ship  of  war. 

B.  The  ])rc8cnce  of  an  armament  and  ammunition  on  board  a  merchant  vessel  creates  a  presumption  that  the 
armament  is  for  offensive  purposes,  but  the  owners  or  agents  may  overcome  this  presumption  by  evidence  showing 
that  the  vessel  carries  armament  solely  for  defense. 

C.  Evidence  necessary  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  armament  is  solely  for  defense  and  will  not  be  used  offensively, 
whether  the  armament  be  mounted  or  stowed  below,  must  be  presented  in  each  case  independently  at  an  official  inves- 
tigation. The  result  of  the  investigation  must  show  conclusively  that  the  armament  is  not  intended  for,  and  will 
not  be  used  in,  offensive  operations. 

Indications  that  the  armament  will  not  be  used  offensively  are: 

1 .  That  the  caliber  of  the  guns  carried  does  not  exceed  six  inches. 

2.  That  the  guns  and  small  arms  carried  arc  few  in  number. 

3.  That  no  guns  are  mounted  on  the  forward  part  of  the  vessel. 

4.  That  the  quantity  of  ammunition  carried  is  small. 

5.  That  the  vessel  is  manned  by  its  usual  crew,  and  the  officers  are  the  same  as  those  on  board  before  war  waa 
declared. 

6.  That  the  vessel  intends  to  and  actually  does  clear  for  a  port  lying  in  its  usual  trade  route,  or  a  port  indicating 
its  purpose  to  continue  in  the  same  trade  in  wlucli  it  was  engaged  before  war  was  declared. 

7.  That  the  vessel  takes  on  board  fuel  and  supplies  sufficient  only  to  carry  it  to  its  port  of  destination,  or  the  same 
quantity  substantially  which  it  has  been  accustomed  to  take  for  a  voyage  before  war  was  declared. 

8.  That  the  cargo  of  the  vessel  consists  of  articles  of  commerce  unsuited  for  the  use  of  a  ship  of  war  in  operations 
against  an  enemy. 

9.  That  the  vessel  carries  passengers  who  are  a.s  a  whole  unfitted  to  enter  the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  bel- 
ligerent whose  flag  the  vessel  flies,  or  of  any  of  its  allies,  and  particularly  if  the  passenger  list  includes  women  and 
children. 

10.  That  the  speed  of  the  ship  is  slow. 

D.  Port  authorities,  on  the  anival  in  a  port  of  the  United  States  of  an  armed  vessel  of  belligerent  nationality, 
claiming  to  be  a  merchant  vessel,  should  immediately  investigate  and  report  to  Washington  on  the  foregoing  indications 
as  to  the  intended  use  of  the  armament,  in  order  that  it  may  be  determined  whether  tlie  evidence  is  sufficient  to  re- 
move the  presumption  that  tlie  vessel  is,  and  should  be  treated  as,  a  ship  of  war.  Clearance  will  not  be  granted  until 
authorized  from  W;i.shington,  and  the  master  will  be  .so  informed  upon  arrival. 

E.  The  conversion  of  a  merchant  vessel  into  a  sliip  of  war  is  a  question  of  fact  whicli  is  to  be  established  by  direct 
or  circumstantial  e\ddence  of  intention  to  use  the  vessel  as  a  ship  of  war. 

Department  of  State, 

Septcmher  19,  191-i. 

I  Same  to  the  British,  French,  and  Japanese  Ambassadors  in  Washington,  and  the  Belgian  Minister. 


44  DEFENSIVE   ARMAMENT. 

[Inclosure  2.) 
MERCHANT   VESSELS   SUSPECTED   OF  CARRYING    SUPPLIES   TO    BELLIGERENT  VESSELS. 

1.  A  biifie  of  operations  for  belligerent  warships  is  presumed  when  fuel  or  other  supplies  are  furnished  at  an  Ameri- 
can port  to  such  warships  more  than  once  within  three  months  since  the  war  began,  or  during  the  period  of  the  war, 
either  directly  or  by  means  of  naval  tenders  of  the  belligerent  or  by  means  of  merchant  vessels  of  belligerent  or  neutral 
nationality  acting  as  tenders. 

2.  A  common  rumor  or  suspicion  that  a  merchant  vessel  laden  with  fuel  or  other  naval  supplies  intends  to  deliver 
it,s  cargo  to  a  belligerent  warship  on  the  high  seas,  when  unsupported  by  direct  or  circumstantial  evidence,  imposes 
no  duty  on  a  neutral  government  to  detain  such  merchant  vessel  even  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  rumor  or 
Buspirion,  unless  it  is  known  that  the  vessel  has  been  previously  engaged  in  funiishing  supplies  to  a  belligerent  war^^hip. 

3.  Circumstantial  evidence,  supporting  a  rumor  or  suspicion  that  a  merchant  vessel  intends  to  fumL^h  a  belligerent 
warship  with  fuel  or  other  supplies  on  the  high  seas,  is  sufficient  to  warrant  detention  of  the  vessel  until  its  intention 
can  be  investigated  in  the  following  cases: 

(a)  WTien  a  belligerent  warship  is  known  to  be  off  the  port  at  which  the  merchant  vessel  is  taking  on  cargo  suited 
for  naval  supplies,  or  when  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  warship  is  off  the  port. 

(6)  When  the  merchant  vessel  is  of  the  nationality  of  the  belligerent  whose  warship  is  knowai  to  be  off  the  coast. 

(c)  ^^'hen  a  merchant  vessel  which  has  on  a  previous  voyage  between  ports  of  the  United  States  and  ports  of  other 
neutral  States  failed  to  have  on  board  at  the  port  of  arrival  a  cargo  consisting  of  naval  supplies  shipped  at  the  port  of 
departure  seeks  to  take  on  board  a  similar  cargo. 

(rf)  ^^^len  coal  or  other  supplies  are  purchased  by  an  agent  of  a  belligerent  Government  and  shipped  on  board  a 
merchant  vessel  which  does  not  clear  for  a  port  of  the  belligerent  but  for  a  neighboring  neutral  port. 

(e)  WTien  an  agent  of  a  belligerent  is  taken  on  board  a  merchant  vessel  ha\'ing  a  cargo  of  fuel  or  other  supplies 
and  clearing  for  a  neighboring  neutral  port. 

4.  The  fact  that  a  merchant  vessel,  which  is  laden  with  fuel  or  other  naval  supplies,  seeks  clearance  under  strong 
suspicion  that  it  is  the  intention  to  furnish  such  fuel  or  supplies  to  a  belligerent  warship,  is  not  sufficient  ground  to 
warrant  its  detention,  if  the  case  is  isolated  and  neither  the  vessel  nor  the  warship  for  which  the  supplies  are  presumably 
intended  has  pre^nously  taken  on  board  similar  supplies  since  the  war  began  or  within  three  months  during  the  period 
of  the  war. 

5.  The  essential  idea  of  neutral  territory  becoming  the  base  for  naval  operations  by  a  belligerent  is  repeated, 
departure  from  such  territory  by  a  naval  tender  of  the  belligerent  or  by  a  merchant  vessel  in  belligerent  service  which 
is  laden  with  fuel  or  other  naval  supplies. 

6.  A  merchant  vessel,  laden  with  naval  supplies,  clearing  from  a  port  of  the  United  States  for  the  port  of  another 
neutral  nation,  which  arrives  at  its  destination  and  there  discharges  its  cargo,  should  not  be  detained  if,  on  a  second 
voyage,  it  takes  on  board  another  cargo  of  similar  nature. 

In  such  a  case  the  port  of  the  other  neutral  nation  may  be  a  base  for  the  naval  operations  of  a  belligerent.  If  so 
and  even  if  the  fact  is  notorious,  this  Government  is  under  no  obligation  to  prevent  the  shipment  of  naval  supplies  to 
that  port.  Commerce  in  munitions  of  war  between  neutral  nations  can  not  as  a  rule  be  a  basis  for  a  claim  of  unneutral 
conduct,  even  though  there  is  a  strong  presumption  or  actual  knowledge  that  the  neutral  State,  in  whose  port  the  sup- 
plies are  discharged,  is  permitting  its  territory  to  be  used  as  a  base  of  supply  for  belligerent  warships.  The  duty  of 
preventing  an  unneutral  act  rests  entirely  upon  the  neutral  State  whose  territory  is  being  used  as  such  a  base. 

In  fact  this  principle  goes  further  in  that,  if  the  supplies  were  shipped  directly  to  an  established  naval  base  in 
the  territory  or  under  the  control  of  a  belligerent,  this  Government  would  not  be  obligated  by  its  neutral  duty  to  limit 
such  shipments  or  detain  or  otherwise  interfere  with  the  merchant  vessels  engaged  in  that  trade.  A  neutral  can  only 
be  charged  with  unneutral  conduct  when  the  supplies,  furnished  to  a  belligerent  warship,  are  furnished  directly  to 
it  in  a  port  of  the  neutral  or  through  naval  tenders  or  merchant  vessels  acting  as  tenders  departing  from  such  port. 

7.  The  foregoing  propositions  do  not  apply  to  furnishing  munitions  of  war  included  in  absolute  contraband,  since 
in  no  event  can  a  belligerent  warship  take  on  board  such  munitions  in  neutral  waters,  nor  should  it  be  permitted  to 
do  so  indirectly  by  means  of  naval  tenders  or  merchant  vessels  acting  as  such  tenders. 

Department  of  State, 

September  19,  1914. 


File  No.  763.72111/156. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Amiassador. 

No.  500.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Septemher  26, 1914. 

Excf-llenct:  I  have  tlic  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  4th  mstant, 
in  which,  with  reference  to  the  presence  m  American  ports  of  the  British  armed  merchant 
vessels  Adriatic  and  Merion,  you  advise  the  department  of  the  receipt  of  a  despatch  from 
Sir  Edward  Grey  in  which  he  states  that  His  Majesty's  Government  holds  the  view  that  it  is 
not  in  accordance  witli  neutraUty  and  international  law  to  detain  in  neutral  ports  merchant 
vessels  anned  with  purely  defensive  armaments. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  this  Government  has  had  the  matter  of  the  status 
of  armed  merchant  vessels  under  consideration,  and  that  it  has  already  made  a  public  announce- 
ment thereon.  , 

In  tliis  relation  I  have  also  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  yom-  Embassy's  memo- 
randum of  the  7th  instant,  announcing  the  departure  of  the  Adriatic  from  New  York,  and 
pointing  out  that,  as  she  had  no  war  material  on  board  and  carried  no  army  reservists,  these 
data  boar  out  the  assurances  that  the  Adriatic  was  bound  on  a  peaceful  commercial  voyage 
and  that  her  armament  was  destined  solely  for  defensive  purposes. 
I  have,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


DEFENSIVE    ARMAMENT.  45 

File  No.  763.72111/227. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  Gerard. 

No.  143.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Septcmher  29,  1914- 
Sir:  I  tnuismit  horowith,  for  tho  information  of  the  German  Govcrumoiit,  copies  of  two 
memoranda  i-isuctl  by  this  Department  which  define  the  general  rules  wliich  tlie  Government 
of  the  United  States  will  follow  in  dealing  with  cases  involving  tho  status  of  armed  merchant 
vessels  visiting  American  ports,  and  with  cases  of  merchant  vessels  suspected  of  carrying  sup- 
plies to  belligerent  warships  from  American  ports. 

Copies  of  these  memoranda  were  also  sent  to  the  German  Ambassador  here,  and  it  is  at  liis 
request  that  tho  copies  herewith  aro  sent  for  communication  to  his  Government. 
I  am,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State : 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/473. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

American  Embassy, 
Berlin,  October  15,  1914-     7  p.  m. 

Mr.  Gerard  transmits  the  following  memorandum  which  he  says  he  has  received  from  the 
German  Foreign  Office: 

"An  official  notice  appearing  m  tho  Westminster  Gazette  of  September  21,  1914,  states 
that  the  Department  of  State  at  Washmgton  has  ruled  that  ships  of  belligerent  nations  when 
equipped  with  ammunition  and  armament  shaU  be  treated  nevertheless,  whQe  in  American 
ports,  as  merchant  ships,  provided  the  armament  serves  for  defensive  purposes  only.  This 
rulhig  wholly  fails  to  comply  with  the  principles  of  neutrality.  The  equipment  of  British  mer- 
chant vessels  with  artillery  is  for  the  purpose  of  making  armed  resistance  against  German  cruis- 
ers. Resistance  of  this  sort  is  contrary  to  international  law,  because  in  a  military  sense  a  mer- 
chant vessel  is  not  permitted  to  defend  itself  agamst  a  war  vessel,  an  act  of  resistance  givmg 
the  warship  *  *  *  i  with  crew  and  passengers.  It  is  a  question  whether  or  not  sliips  thus 
armed  should  l)e  admitted  into  ports  of  a  neutral  country  at  all.  Such  ships,  m  any  event, 
should  not  receive  any  better  treatment  ui  neutral  ports  than  a  regular  wai-ship,  and  should 
be  subject  at  least  to  the  rules  issued  by  neutral  nations  restricting  the  stay  of  a  warship.  If  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  considers  that  it  fulfills  its  duty  as  a  neutral  nation  by  con- 
finmg  the  admission  of  armed  merchant  ships  to  such  ships  as  are  equipped  for  defensive  pur- 
poses only,  it  is  pointed  out  that  so  far  as  determinuog  the  warlike  character  of  a  ship  is  con- 
cerned, the  distinction  between  tho  defensive  and  offensive  is  irrelevant.  The  destination  of  a 
ship  for  use  of  any  kind  in  war  is  conclusive,  and  restrictions  as  to  the  extent  of  anniunent 
affords  no  guarantee  that  ships  armed  for  defensive  purposes  only  will  not  be  used  for  offensive 
purposes  under  certain  circumstances. 


File  No.  7C3.72111/473. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  op  State, 
Washington,  November  7,  1914- 

Your  515,  October  15th.  Tlae  Government  of  the  United  States  is  obliged  to  dissent  from 
tho  views  of  the  German  Government  as  expressed  hi  your  telegram  in  regard  to  the  treatment 
to  be  accorded  armed  merchant  vessels  of  belligerent  nationality  m  neutral  ports.  Tlie  prac- 
tice of  a  majority  of  nations  and  the  concensus  of  opuiion  by  the  leadmg  authorities  on  inter- 
national law,  mcluding  many  German  writers,  support  the  proposition  that  merchant  vessels 
may  arm  for  defense  witliout  loshig  their  private  character  and  that  they  may  emph)y  such 
amiament  against  hostile  attack  without  contravenmg  the  principles  of  mternational  law. 

Tlie  purpose  of  an  armament  on  a  merchant  vessel  is  to  be  determined  by  various  circum- 
stances, among  which  are  the  number  and  position  of  the  guns  on  the  vessel,  the  quantity  of 
ammunition  and  fuel,  the  number  and  sex  of  the  passengers,  the  nature  of  the  cargo,  etc.  Tested 
by  evidence  of  this  character  the  question  as  to  whether  an  arm.iraent  on  a  merchant  vessel  is 
intended  solely  for  defensive  j>uqjoses  may  be  readily  answered  and  the  neutral  govermnent 
should  regulate  its  treatment  of  the  vessel  in  accordance  with  tho  intended  use  of  the  annament. 


I  Omission. 


46  bEFENSIVE  ARMAMENT. 

This  Government  considers  tliat  i;i  permitting  ii  private  vessel  having  a  general  cargo,  a 
customary  amount  of  fuel,  an  average  crew,  and  passengers  of  both  sexes  on  board,  and  carry- 
ing a  small  anniiment  and  a  small  amount  of  ammunition,  to  enjoy  the  hospitality  of  an  Ameri- 
can ])ort  us  a  men'lnmt  vessel,  it  is  in  no  way  violating  its  duty  as  a  neutral.  Nevertlicless  it 
is  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  circumstances  of  a  particular  case  may  be  such  as  to  cause 
eml)arrassment  and  possible  controversy  as  to  tlu^  charactc^r  of  an  armed  private  vessel  visiting 
its  ports.  Recognizing,  therefore,  the  desirability  of  avoiding  a  ground  of  complaint  tills  Gov- 
eriunent,  as  soon  as  a  case  arose,  while  frankly  admitting  the  right  of  a  merchant  vessel  to  carry 
a  defensive  aiTnament,  expressed  its  disapprobation  of  a  practice  which  compelled  it  to  pass 
upon  a  vessel's  intended  use,  which  opmion  if  proven  subsequently  to  be  eiToneous  might  con- 
stitute a  ground  for  a  charge  of  mmeutral  conduct. 

As  a  result  of  these  representations  no  merchant  vassels  with  armaments  have  visited  the 
ports  of  the  United  States  smce  the  lOth  of  September.  In  fact  from  the  begimving  of  the 
European  wars  but  two  armed  private  vessels  have  entered  or  cleared  from  ports  of  this  country 
and  as  to  these  vessels  their  character  as  merchant  vessels  was  conclusively  established. 

Please  bring  the  foregoing  to  the  attention  of  the  German  Goveriunent  and  in  domg  so 
express  the  hope  that  they  will  also  prevent  their  merchant  vessels  from  entering  the  ports  of 
the  United  States  carrying  annaments  even  for  defensive  purposes  though  they  may  possess 
the  riglit  to  do  so  by  the  rules  of  international  law. 

Lansing. 


I 


PART  V. 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  SHIPS  GEIER  AND  LOCKSUN. 


47 


INTERNMENT  OF  GERMAN  SHIPS  GEIER  AND  LOCKSUN. 

File  No.  763.72111/75G. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  369.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  October  2S,  1,914. 

Sir:  According  to  information  which  has  reached  my  Government,  the  German  war  vessel 
Geier  lias  hocn  undergoing  repairs  at  Honokihi  since  October  17,  and  sliould  he  now  ready  to 
take  tlie  sea.  In  view  of  Article  17  of  No.  13  of  the  Hague  Convention  of  1907  I  have  the 
honour  to  protest  against  the  continued  presence  of  the  Geier  in  a  United  States  harbour  and 
to  request  that  she  may  be  interned. 

My  Govcrnni(>nt  has  also  been  hiformed  that  the  German  ship  Locksun  is  now  in  Honolulu 
with  1,000  tons  of  coal  on  board.  As  the  Department  was  informed  in  the  memorandum  from 
this  Embassy  of  the  19th  instant,*  she  is  one  of  the  sliips  which  have  been  despatched  by 
Messrs.  Behimieyer  from  Philijipine  ports  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  supplies  of  coal  to 
German  cruisers.  She  sailed  from  Manila  ostensibly  for  Menado  (Celebes),  but  did  not  call 
there,  and  arrived  at  Honolulu  on  October  15  in  company  with  the  German  cruiser  Geier. 

As  she  obviously  made  a  false  declaration  of  destination,  there  appears  to  be  circumstantial 
evidence  that  she  has  already  been  engaged  in  furnishng  supplies  to  a  beUigerent  warship,  and 
that  under  the  general  rides  of  international  law  and  the  United  States  regulations  of  Sejitember 
19,  1914,  there  is  gromid  for  detainmg  her  for  the  pupose  of  enquiry. 
I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/547. 

The  Japanese  Amhassador  to  the  Counselor. 
[Extract.] 

Imperial  Japanese  Embassy, 

]Yaskmgton,  October  28, 1914. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Lansing:  Adverting   to   our  conversation  on  October  26   and   to   your 
unofficial  letter  of  October  27,*  relatmg  to  the  German  man-of-war  Geier,  I  wish  to  inform 
you  that  the  purport  of  oiu*  conversation  as  well  as  the  contents  of  your  letter  has  been 
referred  to  the  home  government. 

In  the  meantime.  Baron  Kato  has  sent  me  telegraphic  instructions,  which  apparently 
crossed  my  cables,  the  substance  of  which  I  beg  to  enclose  herewith.*     Witli  regard  to  it, 
I  should  be  greatly  obhged  if  you  would  give  me  further  information  concerning  your  intention 
as  regards  the  disposition  of  the  Geier. 
I  am,  etc., 

S.  Chinda. 


File  No.  763.72111/550. 

The  Assistant  Secretartj  of  the  Treasury  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Treasury  Department, 

Washington,  October  28,  1914. 
Sir:  Referring  to  this  Department's  letter  of  the  21st  instant  and  previous  correspondence, 
relative  to  the  German  gunboat  Geier,  now  at  Honolulu,  I  have  the  honor  to  quote  a  further 
cablegram  from  the  collector  of  customs  at  that  port,  as  follows: 

noNOLULU,  Oct.  27,  1914  {10.15  p.  m.) 
On  October  15  captain  German  gunboat  Gckr  requested  permission  to  make  repairs  to  render  vessel  seaworthy 
and  estimated  time  for  same  at  one  week.  On  October  20  Naval  Constructor  Furer,  at  my  request,  examined  the  vessel 
and  recommended  that  time  be  extended  eight  days  from  20th  to  place  boilers  in  seaworthy  condition.  To-day  consul 
reqiiesl.s  from  eight  to  ten  days  more  in  which  to  make  repairs  to  steam  and  feed  piping  and  boilers  that  have  been 
fo\ind  to  be  leaking.  Consul  states  captain  has  used  every  effort  to  finish  repairs,  working  Sundays  and  overtime,  but 
owing  to  lack  of  labor  can  not  finish  in  less  time.  Naval  Constructor  Furer  has  just  completed  another  examination  of 
the  vessel  and  reports  that  he  is  unable  to  state  how  long  repairs  should  take,  aa  more  leak-y  tubes  may  be  found  as  work 

*  Xol  printed. 
4550°— I.'-. i  49 


50  INTERNMENT   OF   SHIPS   GEIER   AND   LOCKSUN. 

progresses.  Honolulu  iron  works  estimates  time  for  repairs  at  from  two  to  three  weeks,  whirh,  in  opinion  of  Purer, 
is  a  conservative  minimum.  Purer  reports  piping  and  boilers  in  bad  condition;  may  possibly  take  further  time  to 
repair.     Await  instructions. 

I  will  thank  you  to  adviso  mo  as  soon  as  possible  what  additional  instructions  you  desire 
to  be  given  to  the  collector  in  the  matter. 

Wm.  p.  Malbuen. 


Pile  No.  703.72111/535. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Guthrie. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  SO,  lOl^. 
Your  October  28th,  11a.  m.,*  Government  has  instructed  authorities  to  notify  captain  of 
Geier  that  repairs  must  be  completed  within  definite  time  or  vessel  will  be  interned.     Exact 
date  obviously  can  not  be  made  known. 

Lansing. 


FUe  No.  763.72111/550. 

The  Counselor  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  30,  1914. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  The  Department  has  been  advised  that  the  German  gunboat 
Geier  put  into  the  port  of  Honolulu,  and  on  October  15  the  captain  requested  permission  to  make 
repairs  to  render  the  vessel  seaworthy,  and  estimated  the  time  for  this  work  to  be  one  week. 
The  naval  constructor  of  the  United  States  at  the  port  of  Honolulu  examined  the  vessel  on 
October  20,  and  recommended  that  the  time  be  extended  eight  days,  from  October  20,  in  order 
to  place  the  boilers  in  a  seaworthy  condition.  On  October  27,  the  German  consul  at  that  port 
requested  from  eight  to  ten  days  additional  time  in  which  to  make  repairs  to  steam  and  feed 
piping  and  boilers  that  have  been  found  to  be  m  a  leaking  condition.  Upon  a  further  examina- 
tion, the  United  States  naval  constructor  reports  that  he  is  unable  to  state  how  long  repairs 
shotild  take,  as  conditions  requiring  remedy  may  be  found  as  work  progresses.  It  is  also 
reported  that,  on  account  of  the  generally  bad  condition  of  the  piping  and  boilers,  further 
time  may  be  required  to  complete  all  repairs. 

The  circumstances  m  this  case  point  to  the  gmiboat  Geier  as  a  ship  that  at  the  outbreak 
of  war  finds  itself  in  a  more  or  less  broken-down  condition  and  on  the  point  of  undergoing  general 
repairs,  but  still  able  to  keep  the  sea.  In  this  situation  the  Government  believes  that  it  does 
not  comport  with  a  strict  neutrality  or  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  Hague  Conventions,  to  allow 
such  a  vessel  to  complete  unlimited  rejiairs  in  a  United  States  port.  The  Government  therefore 
has  instructed  the  authorities  to  notify  the  caj^tain  of  the  Geier  that  three  weeks  from  October  15 
will  be  allowed  the  Geier  for  repairs,  and  that  if  she  is  not  able  to  leave  American  waters  by 
November  6,  the  United  States  will  feel  obliged  to  msist  that  she  be  uiterned  until  the  expiration 
of  the  war. 

I  am,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/547. 

The  Counselor  to  the  Japanese  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  SO,  1914- 
My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  In  reply  to  your  note  of  the  2Sth  instant,  in  regard  to  the 
German  gunboat  Geier,  now  undergoing  repairs  at  Honolulu,  I  would  advise  you  that  the 
Imperial  German  Ambassador  in  this  capital  has  been  informed  of  this  Government's  intention 
to  fix  a  definite  period  within  which  repairs  to  this  vessel  should  be  completed,  and  that  if  it 
is  found  impossible  to  complete  the  repairs  within  the  period  set,  the  United  States  will  be 
obliged  to  insist  that  the  gunboat  be  interned  during  the  present  war.  Instructions  have 
been  issued  to  the  United  States  officers  to  mform  the  captain  of  the  Geier  in  this  same  sense. 
I  am,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 

*  Not  printed. 


INTERNMENT,  OF   SHU'S   GEIER  AND   LOCKSUN.  51 

Kill!  No.  7f):!.72m/r>r,o. 

The  Acting  Secretanj  of  Staff  to  the  British  Amhassador. 

Department  of  State, 

WdsJrinfjIon,  October  30,  1914. 

Excellency:  The  Department  has  received  your  note  of  tlie  2Sth  instant  protesting 
against  the  continued  presonco  of  the  Oder  in  a  I^'nited  States  liarbor  and  requesting  that  she 
may  ho  interned.  In  repl\-  I  have  tlie  honor  to  inform  you  that  tlie  Imperial  German  Ambas- 
sador in  this  capital  lias  been  advised  of  this  Government's  intention  to  fix  a  definite  period 
witliin  which  repairs  to  this  vessel  should  b(>  completed,  and  that  if  she  is  umddc  to  leave  Ameri- 
can waters  within  the  j^eriod  set,  the  I'nited  States  Government  will  feel  obliged  to  insist  that 
she  be  interned.  The  appropriate  authorities  of  the  United  States  have  been  instructed  to 
inform  the  captain  of  the  Gciir  in  this  sense. 

You  also  call  attention  in  your  note  to  the  German  ship  Lochsun  now  in  Honolulu  with 
1 ,000  tons  of  coal  on  hoard,  and  state  that  slie  sailed  from  Manila,  ostensibly  for  Menado,  in 
tiie  Celebes,  but  did  not  call  there  and  arrived  at  Honolulu  on  October  15  in  compau}'  with 
tlie  German  cruiser  Gcier.  You  further  state  that  as  she  obviously  made  a  false  declaration  of 
destination,  there  appears  to  bo  circumstantial  evidence  that  she  has  already  been  engaged 
in  furnishing  supplies  to  a  belligerent  warship  and  that,  under  the  general  rules  of  international 
law  and  the  United  States  regulations  of  September  19  there  is  ground  for  detaining  her  for 
the  purpose  of  inquir3^  In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  instructions  have  been 
issued  to  detain  this  vessel,  pending  an  investigation  as  to  whether  she  has  been  furnishing 
supplies  to  belligerent  warships.  This  matter  will  be  made  the  subject  of  a  further  communi- 
cation to  you  when  the  examination  has  been  completed. 

T  liave,  etc.,  Robert  Lansing. 


File  N"o.  703.72111/840. 


Tlie  Counselor  to  the  German  Ambassador. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  7,  1914. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  Referring  to  my  previous  communication  to  you  of  October 
30  regarding  the  internment  of  the  German  cruiser  Gcier,  the  Department  is  now  in  po.ssession 
of  information  that  the  German  steamship  Locksun,  belonging  to  the  Norddeutschcr  Lloyd 
Company,  cleared  August  16,  1914,  from  Manila  with  3,215  tons  of  coal  for  Menado,  in  the 
Celebes:  that  she  coaled  the  German  warship  Geler  in  the  course  of  her  voyage  toward  Hono- 
lulu, where  she  arrived  soon  after  the  Gcier;  that  the  Loclcsun  received  coal  by  transfer  from 
another  vessel  somewhere  between  Manila  and  Honolulu,  and  that  the  captain  stated  that  he 
had  on  board  245  or  250  tons  of  coal  when  he  entered  Honolulu,  whereas  investigation  showed 
that  he  had  on  board  approximately  1,600  tons. 

From  these  facts  the  Department  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  operations  of  the  Loclcsun 
constitute  her  a  tender  to  the  Gcier,  and  that  she  may  be  reasonably  so  considered  at  the  present 
time.  This  Government  is,  therefore,  under  the  necessity  of  according  the  Loelsun  the  same 
treatment  as  the  Gcier,  and  has  taken  steps  to  have  the  vessel  interned  at  Honolulu  if  she  does 
not  leave  immediately. 

I  am,  etc.,  Robert  Lansing. 

Kile  Ko.  7fi3.72111/63fi. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Counselor  of  tlic  Department. 

J.  No.  A  2171.]  German  Embassy, 

'Washington,  November  11,  1914- 

^Iy  Dear  Mr.  Lansing:  I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  7th  instant  inform- 
ing mo  tiiat  the  German  steamer  Loclcsun,  belonging  to  the  Norddeutschcr  Lloyd,  now  at 
H(molulu,  is  considered  by  the  United  States  Government  as  being  a  tender  to  H.  M.  S.  Geier 
and  would  therefore  be  interned  at  Honolulu  if  she  did  not  leave  immediately. 

In  reply  to  this  communication  I  beg  you  to  kindly  let  me  know  on  whicii  rule  or  regula- 
tion the  detention  of  the  Loclcsun  is  to  be  based. 

The  Loci-sun  can  not  be  considered  as  a  man-of-war,  not  even  an  auxihary  ship,  but  is  a 

simple  merchant  ship.     As  to  the  alleged  coaling  of  11.  M.  S.  Geier  from  the  Loclcsun  the  neu- 

trahty  regulations  of  the  United  States  only  provide  that  a  vessel  can  be  prevented  from  takmg 

coal  to  a  warship  for  a  period  of  three  months  after  having  left  an  American  port.     As  the 

Loclcsun  left  the  last  American  port  (Manila)  on  August  16  she  ought  to  be  free  on  November  16. 

I  am,  etc., 

J.  Bernstoeff. 


52  INTERNMENT   OF   SHIPS   GEIER   AND   I.OCKSUN. 

File  No.  7G3.72111/651. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 

No.  A  2190.]  Germ.\n  Embassy, 

Washington,  Novenilxr  11,  lOlJf. 

Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  Two  officers  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  who  had  been  granted  sick  leave 
have  been  interned  with  their  orderhes  in  the  United  States.  It  seems  that  the  United  States 
'Government  took  that  measiu'e  on  the  groiuid  that  the}'  Ijelonged  to  the  company  of  a  ship 
whoso  crew  faced  internment  and  which  was  in  fact  dismantled  later.  Tlais  position  woidd 
undoubtedly  be  correct  if  the  officers  had  not  left  the  ship  until  after  internment,  as  in  that 
case  the  whole  crew  should  bo  treated  exactly  like  troops  that  cross  the  border  of  a  neutral 
comitry.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  H.  M.  S.  Geier  was  not  dismantled  mitU  the  7th  of  this 
month  and  the  official  communication  of  Under  Secretary  of  State  Lansing  which  spoke  of  the 
disarmament  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  ujider  certain  conditions  is  dated  October  30.  As  to  this  I  have 
the  honor  to  uifonn  Your  Excellency  that  the  interned  officers  and  their  orderlies  had  already 
left  Honolulu  on  the  28th  of  October,  that  is,  before  the  question  of  interning  the  crew  of  H.  M.  S. 
Geier  had  come  up.  It  is  therefore  not  a  fact  that  those  officers  and  men  belonged  to  the 
company  of  a  ship  on  the  point  of  being  interned. 

In  this  connection  I  woidd  draw  Your  Excellency's  attention  to  the  treatment  accorded  to 
the  British  Major  Robertson.  That  officer  was  allowed  by  the  like  iVmerican  authorities  to 
proceed  on  liis  jom-ney,  although  it  was  shoNvn  that  he  had  taken  an  active  part  in  the  war 
against  Germany  by  fighting  in  the  battle  before  Tsingtau.  As  this  discrimination  in  the 
treatment  of  German  and  English  officers  appears  to  me  to  bo  tUfficidt  to  explain,  I  have  the 
honor  to  beg  Your  Excellency  to  cause  tliis  question  to  be  agahi  examined  in  the  hght  of  the 
neutrality  of  the  United  States  and  kindly  to  procure  for  the  officers  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  and  their 
orderhes  pennission  to  travel  freely. 
Accept,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  763.72111/614.] 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

WasTiington,  Novemher  12,  1914- 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  of  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasmy,  stathig  that  a  telegram  has  been  received  from  the  collector  of  customs  at 
Honolulu,  reporting  that,  on  November  8,  1914,  the  German  naval  vessels  Geier  and  LocTcsun 
were  interned  there. 
Accept,  etc. 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


File  No.  763.72111/636.] 

The  Counselor  of  (he  Deimrtment  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  Novemher  16,  1914- 
My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  In  reply  to  yonr  note  of  the  11th  instant,  inqtnring  on  wliich 
rule  or  regidation  the  internment  of  the  Gcmaan  ship  LocJcsun  is  based,  I  would  advise  you  that 
the  Loclisun  has  been  interned  on  the  principle  that  she  has  been  acting  as  a  tender  to  the 
German  warship  Geier,  as  the  facts  set  forth  in  my  note  of  the  7th  instant  substantiate.  If, 
imder  the  circumstances,  the  LocJcsun  has  been  in  fact  a  tender  to  the  Geier,  the  question  involved 
does  not  relate  to  the  amomit  of  coal  which  cither  the  Locksun  or  the  Geier  has  taken  on  within 
tliree  months,  but  rather  relates  to  the  association  and  cooperation  of  the  two  vessels  in 
belligerent  operations.  The  LocTcsun,  having  been  shown  to  have  taken  the  part  of  a  supply 
ship  for  the  Geier,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  tliis  Government,  stamped  with  the  belHgerent  character 
of  that  vessel,  and  has  really  become  a  part  of  her  equipment.  In  this  situation  it  is  difficidt 
to  understand  on  what  basis  it  woxild  have  been  possible  to  distinguish  between  the  two  vessels, 
so  as  to  inteni  the  one  and  not  the  other.  Tliis  Goveriunent,  therefore,  has  tsiken  what  appears 
to  it  to  be  the  oidy  reasonable  course,  under  the  circumstances,  and  directed  that  both  vessels 
be  interned. 

I  am,  etc.,  Robert  Lansing. 


INTERNMENT   OF   SHIPS  GEIEB  AND   LOCKSUN.  53 


File  No.  763.72111/743. 


The  German  Amhassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Translation.] 

No.  A.2453.]  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  November  21, 191 /f. 

Mil.  Secrktary  of  State:  In  reply  to  Your  Exoclloiicy's  kind  note  of  tho  12(h  instant 
and  with  reference  to  Under  Socrotary  of  State  Laasinj^'s  letter  of  tlio  IGtli  instant,  both  about  the 
internment  of  the  German  steam.ship  LocJcsvn  at  Honolulu,  I  have  the  honor  to  say  the  following; 

Under  Secretary  of  State  Lansing  informed  mo  in  his  above-raent  ion(>d  letter  of  tho  lOth 
instant  that  the  S.  S.  Lochsun  liad  been  interned  because  she  had  served  as  a  tender  to  II.  M.  S. 
Geier,  had  thereby  assumed  tho  character  of  a  belligerent  and  was  to  be  considered  as  part  of 
tho  equipment  of  a  war  vessel.  To  this  I  wish  to  say  that  there  is,  so  far  as  I  Icnow,  no  inter- 
national law  or  stipulation  in  existence  wliich  imparts  tho  character  of  a  wareraft,  i.  e.,  of  a 
"part  of  a  war  ship"  to  a  tender  on  account  of  her  accompanying  a  warship.  The  situation 
in  times  of  peace  also  proves  this.  Where  there  is  a  likeliliood  of  the  warsliip  being  unable 
safely  to  get  along  on  her  own  resources,  there  is  the  necessity  of  scutling  tcuiders  along.  This 
is  rather  often  done  in  times  of  peace  without  causing  such  tenders  to  be  considered  and  treated 
on  that  account  as  "parts  of  the  warship  concerned,"  or  in  the  light  of  international  law  even 
as  wai-ships. 

Granting,  however,  that  such  vessel  could  actually  be  considered  as  "part  of  a  warship," 
then  tliere  could  be  no  doubt  that  its  part  as  a  coaling  and  supply  ship  would  come  to  an  end 
at  the  ver}^  moment  the  warship  is  mterncHl  and  she  would  then  cease  to  be  "part  of  a  warship." 

Besides,  if  it  bo  enough,  as  stated  in  tho  above  referred  to  note  of  the  16th  instant,  to  stamp 
a  steamer  as  a  wareraft  that  she  did  supply  a  war  vessel  with  coals  or  provisions,  then  tho  steam- 
ship Loclcsun's  case  in  nowise  differs  from  that  of  the  tug  F.  B.  Dahrll,  which,  as  I  had  the 
honor  to  inform  Your  Excellency  by  my  note  of  tho  21st  ultimo,  carried  victuals  and  informa- 
tion to  tho  English  warship  Essex  from  the  port  of  New  York. 
Accept,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  763.72111/651. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Wasliington,  November  27,  1914. 

Excellency:  The  Department  has  received  your  note  of  tho  lltli  instant  in  regard  to  the 
two  officers  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  and  their  orderlies,  who  left  that  vessel  before  it  was  interned, 
but  wlio  have  with  the  remainder  of  its  complement  been  interned  withm  United  States  juris- 
diction. You  ask  that,  as  tho  actual  internment  of  the  vessel  took  place  on  the  7th  instant, 
and  as  the  officers  and  their  orderlies  left  Honolulu  on  the  28th  ultimo,  the  case  be  reexamined 
and  tho  officers  and  their  orderlies  be  released. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  the  case  has  been  carefully  reexamined  and 
that  this  Government,  in  its  observance  of  a  strict  neutrality,  is  under  obligation  to  retain 
these  gentlemen  in  custody  as  a  part  of  the  Geier's  company  when  she  entered  Amc^rican  juris- 
diction. It  appears  that  these  men  were  not  only  duly  incorporated  in  the  armed  forces  of 
Germany,  a  belligerent  power,  but  were  also  in  a  sense  a  part  of  an  organized  body  of  such 
forces  entering  a  neutral  port.  In  siich  a  case  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare  permit  a  limited 
hospitality  to  be  extended  to  them,  dependent  upon  their  observing  certain  conditions.  In 
the  case  of  the  Geier,  these  conditions  were,  it  is  believed,  very  generous.  After  a  delay  of 
several  days  within  the  hospitality  of  the  United  vStates,  instead  of  the  conventional  24  hours, 
these  officers  and  their  orderlies  appear  to  have  been  granted  sick  leave  by  the  captain  of  the 
Geier.  This  fact,  however,  can  not,  it  is  believed,  properly  be  urged  as  separating  them  from 
the  (reier  in  relation  to  its  subsequent  treatment.  They  arrived  within  United  States  juris- 
diction as  a  part  of  an  organized  armed  force  of  the  German  Empne,  and  this  fact,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Government,  appears  to  be  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter.  Were  a  distinction 
to  be  made  on  the  grounds  set  forth  in  your  note  a  ship  in  danger  from  her  enemy  might  enter 
a  neutral  port,  and  before  tho  2-1-hour  period  had  elapsed,  and  before  there  was  any  danger  of 
intermnent,  her  officers  and  crew  might  leave  her  and  afterwards  claim  the  right  to  return  to 
their  country  as  individuals.  This  course  would  manifestly  not  comport  with  the  principles 
of  neutrality  as  they  are  understood  by  the  Department. 

Your  Excellency  compares  the  case  of  these  officers  and  men  of  H.  M.  S.  Geier  with  that 
of  Major  Robertson  of  the  British  Army,  who  appears  to  have  been  taken  mto  custody  by 
American  officers  and  sliortly  thereafter  released.  The  Department  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
two  incidents  have  no  essential  resemblance.  Major  Robertson  arrived  in  tho  United  States 
as  an  individual  and  not  as  a  part  of  an  organized  military  body  traveling  together.  The 
United  States,  therefore,  m  its  governmental  capacity  as  a  neutral,  was  not  bound  imder  the 


54  INTERNMENT   OP   SHIPS   GEIER   AND   LOCKSUN. 

principles  of  intomational  law  to  iutoni  him  or  to  intorforo  with  his  freedom  of  movement  so 
long  as  his  conduct  did  not  infringe  the  proprieties  of  international  or  municipal  law. 

The  Department  regrets,  therefore,  to  advise  you  that  this  Government,  after  having 

carefully  reexamined  the  case,  does  not  see  its  way  to  release  the  officers  and  their  orderlies  in 

.  question,  or  to  consider  them  other  than  as  a  part  of  the  complement  of  H.  M.  S.  Gcicr,  which 

the  United  States  Government  has  been  under  the  necessity  of  havmg  interned  during  the 

continuance  of  the  present  war. 

Accept,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 

File  No.  763.72111/743. 

The  Secretary  of  Stale  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  11,  1914- 

Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  21st  ultimo 
in  regard  to  the  internment  of  the  German  steamship  Loclsun  at  Honolulu. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  call  your  attention  to  the  expression  "part  of  a  warship," 
which  occurs  throughout  your  note.  I  do  not  understand  from  what  source  this  expression 
is  derived,  as  I  do  not  find  it  in  the  correspondence  of  the  Department  to  you  on  this  subject. 
In  my  note  to  you  of  the  16tn  ultimo  it  was  stated  that  the  Loclsun,  having  been  shown  to 
have  taken  the  part  of  a  supply  sliip  for  the  Geier,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Government,  stamped 
with  the  belligerent  character  of  that  vessel,  and  has  really  become  part  of  her  equipment.  This 
of  course  does  not  state  that  she  is  a  "part  of  a  warship."  A  tender  is  a  part  of  the  equipment 
of  a  vessel  of  war  in  the  sense  of  acting  as  an  auxiliary  to  such  a  vessel  in  the  matter  of 
carrying  supplies  and  possibly  giving  other  assistance.  In  a  very  real  sense  a  vessel  of  war  so 
attended  may  be  considered  as  a  belligerent  expedition  of  which  the  tender  is  a  part  of  the 
equipment,  but  to  put  a  tender  in  the  category  of  "part  of  a  warship"  is  to  suggest  that  the 
treatment  to  be  accorded  the  tender  shall  be  governed  by  the  rules  of  contraband. 

In  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  as  known  by  the  Department,  it  is  obhged  to  state  that 
it  still  adheres  to  its  previous  position  that  the  status  of  the  LocTcsun  as  a  tender  to  the  ship  of 
war  Geier  was  sufficiently  proved  to  justify  her  treatment  as  such.  In  this  coimection  the 
Department  has  the  honor  to  call  to  your  attention  the  following  quotation  from  the  award  of 
the  Alabama  Claims  Commission,  which  seems  to  establish  this  princijjle  regarding  the  treat- 
ment of  tenders,  although  the  appHcation  of  this  statement  was  not  made  to  the  exact  circum- 
stances of  the  Locksun  case: 

And  so  far  as  relates  to  the  vessels  called  the  Tusmloosa  (tender  to  the  Alabama),  the  Clarence,  the  Tacony,  and  the 
Archer  (tendercj  to  the  Florida),  tlie  tribunal  is  unanimously  of  opinion  tliat  such  tenders  or  auxiliary  vessels,  being 
properly  regarded  as  accessories,  must  necessarily  follow  the  lot  of  their  principals  and  be  submitted  to  the  same 
decision  which  applies  to  them  respectively. 

Tlie  entire  practice  of  the  internment  of  vessels  appears  to  be  of  recent  origin.  The  doctrine 
of  internment  was  apparently  first  applied  to  any  great  extent  during  the  Russo-Japanese  war, 
and  it  is  beheved  that  the  treatment  of  the  LocTcsun  is  in  keeping  -with  the  high  standard  of 
neutrality  upon  which  the  doctrine  of  intermnent  is  based.  The  Department  is  not  aware  that 
measures  to  preserve  neutrality  are  entirely  dictated  by  precedent  and  mternational  law,  and 
it  believes  that  belligerents  hardly  have  proper  cause  to  question  an  attitude  on  neutrality  justly 
in  advance  of  precedent  and  international  law  if  it  is  applied  by  the  neutral  impartially  to  all 
belligerents.  As  to  the  ad\asabihty  of  assuming  such  an  attitude,  the  Department  is  impressed 
with  the  proposition  that  the  neutral  and  not  the  belligerent  is  the  proper  judge  in  the  circum- 
stances. 

You  refer  to  the  case  of  the  tug  F.  B.  DalzeU,  wliich  j-ou  state  carried  suppUes  and  mfor- 
mation  to  the  English  warship  Essex  from  the  port  of  New  York,  and  suggest  that  this  case 
in  no  wise  diifers  from  that  of  the  steamsliip  Locksun.  In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
you  that  the  result  of  tliis  Government's  investigation  is  to  the  effect  that  the  tug  Dalzdl  did 
not  as  a  fact  carry  suppUes  and  information  to  any  British  warsliip  from  the  port  of  New  York. 
If,  however.  Your  Excellency  is  in  possession  of  facts  showing  the  contrary,  the  Government 
wiU  be  glad  to  be  furnished  with  such  data  in  order  that  it  may  renew  its  investigation  and 
establish  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  tug  DalzeU,  whether  or  not  it  agrees  with  the  present  finding 
of  the  Government.  It  will  be  rectdled,  however,  that  the  tug  DalzeU  is  an  ^bnerican  vessel 
and  therefore  is  not  subject  to  intermnent  as  that  term  is  imderstood  in  international  law. 
This  circumstance  is  not  regarded,  however,  as  rcdieving  the  Government  from  the  duty  of 
preventing  the  use  of  American  ports  as  bases  of  naval  operations  as  required  by  the  provisions 
of  Hague  Convention  No.  13,  of  1907. 
Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


PART  VI. 


QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  NEUTRALITY.—CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN 

THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE  AND  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE 

SENATE  COMMITTEE  ON  FOREIGN  RELATIONS. 


55 


I 


QUESTIONS  RELATING  TO  NEUTFIALITY. 


Chairman  oftlie  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Washington,  Januanj  S,  1915. 
Dkar  Mr.  Skcretary:  As  you  arc  aware,  frequent  complaints  or  charges  arc  made  in 
one  form  or  another  througli  the  press  that  this  Government  has  shown  partiahty  to  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  Russia  as  against  Gennany  and  Austria  during  the  present  war  between 
those  powers;  in  addition  to  wliich  I  have  received  numerous  letters  to  the  same  effect  from 
sjTnpathizers  witli  Germany  and  Austria.  The  various  groimds  of  these  complaints  may  be 
summarized  and  stated  in  the  following  form: 

1.  Freedom  of  conmimiication  by  submarme  cables,  but  censorship  of  wireless  messages. 

2.  Submission  to  censorship  of  mails  and  in  some  cases  to  the  repeated  destruction  of 
American  letters  found  on  neutral  vessels. 

3.  The  search  of  American  vessels  for  German  and  Austrian  subjects — 
(a)  On  the  high  seas. 

(&)  In  territorial  waters  of  a  belligerent. 

4.  Submission  without  protest  to  English  violations  of  the  rules  regar(hng  absolute  and 
conditional  contraband,  as  laid  down — 

(ff)  In  the  Hague  Conventions. 

Q))  In  international  law. 

(c)  In  the  Declaration  of  London. 

5.  Submission  without  protest  to  inclusion  of  copper  in  the  list  of  absolute  contraband. 

6.  Submission  \\ithout  protest  to  uiterference  with  American  trade  to  neutral  countries— 
(a)  In  conditional  contraband. 

Qi)  In  absolute  contraband. 

7.  Submission  without  protest  to  interruption  of  trade  in  conditional  contraband  con- 
signed to  private  persons  in  Germany  and  Austria,  thereby  supporting  the  policy  of  Great 
Britain  to  cut  off  all  supplies  fron  Germany  and  Austria. 

8.  Submission  to  British  interruption  of  trade  in  petroleum,  rubber,  leather,  wool,  etc. 

9.  No  interference  with  the  sale  to  Great  Britain  and  her  allies  of  arms,  ammunition, 
horses,  unifonns,  and  other  munitions  of  war,  although  such  sales  prolong  the  war. 

10.  No  suppression  of  sale  of  dumdum  bullets  to  Great  Britain. 

11.  British  warships  are  permitted  to  lie  off  American  ports  and  mtercept  neutral  vessels 

12.  Submission  ^vithout  protest  to  disregard  by  Great  Britain  and  her  allies  of — 
(a)  American  naturahzation  certificates. 

(6)  American  passports. 

13.  Change  of  ])olicy  in  regard  to  loans  to  beUigerents: 
(a)  General  loans. 

(6)  Credit  loans. 

14.  Submission  to  arrest  of  native-born  Americans  on  neutral  vessels  and  in  British  ports, 
and  their  imprisonment. 

15.  Indifference  to  confinement  of  noncombatants  in  detention  camps  in  England  and 
France. 

16.  Failure  to  prevent  transshipment  of  British  troops  and  war  material  across  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States. 

17.  Treatment  and  final  internment  of  German  steamship  Geier  and  the  collier  Locksun 
at  Honolulu. 

18.  Unfairness  to  Germany  m  rules  relative  to  coaling  of  warships  in  Panama  Canal  Zone. 

19.  FaUiu-e  to  protest  against  the  modifications  of  the  declaration  of  London  by  the  British 
Government. 

20.  General  unfriendly  attitude  of  Government  toward  Germany  and  Austria. 

If  you  deem  it  not  incompatible  with  the  pubhc  interest  I  would  be  obUged  if  you  would 
furnish  me  with  whatever  information  your  department  may  have  toucliing  these  various 
points  of  complaint,  or  request  the  coimselor  of  the  State  Department  to  send  me  the  informa- 
tion, with  any  suggestions  you  or  he  may  deem  advisable  to  make  with  respect  to  either  the 
legal  or  ])olitical  aspects  of  the  subject.  So  far  as  informed  I  see  no  reason  why  aU  the  master 
I  am  requesting  to  be  furnished  should  not  be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  true  situation 
may  bo  known  and  misapprehensions  quieted. 

I  have,  etc., 

Wm.  J.  Stone. 

57 


58  QUESTIONS   RELATING   TO   NEUTRALITY. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Chairman  of  ike  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 

DEPARTJfENT   OF   StATE, 

Washington,  January  20,  1915. 

Dear  Mr.  Stone:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  8th  instant,  referring  to  frequent 
comphiijits  or  charge's  made  in  one  form  or  another  tlirougli  the  press  that  this  Government 
has  shown  partiahty  to  Gr(!at  Britain,  France,  and  Russia  against  Germany  and  Austria  during 
the  present  war,  and  stating  that  you  have  received  numerous  letters  to  the  same  effect  from 
sympatliizers  with  the  latter  powcre.  You  sunmiarizc  the  various  grounds  of  these  complaints 
and  ask  that  you  he  furnished  with  wliatevcr  information  the  department  may  have  toucliing 
these  points  of  complaint,  in  order  that  you  may  be  mformed  as  to  what  the  true  situation  is  in 
regard  to  these  matters. 

In  order  that  you  may  have  such  mformation  as  the  department  has  on  the  subjects 
referred  to  in  your  letter,  I  will  take  them  up  seriatim. 

(1)  Freedom  of  communication  hy  submarine  cables  versus  censored  communication  by  wire- 
less. 

The  reason  that  wireless  messages  and  cable  messages  reqvure  different  treatment  by  a 
neutral  Government  is  as  follows: 

Communications  by  wireless  can  not  be  interrupted  by  a  belligerent.  With  a  submarine 
cable  it  is  otherwise.  The  possil)ihty  of  cutting  the  cable  exists,  and  if  a  l)eUigerent  possesses 
naval  superiority  the  cable  is  cut,  as  was  the  German  cable  near  the  Azores  by  one  of  Germany's 
enemies  and  as  was  the  British  cable  near  Fanning  Island  by  a  German  naval  force.  Since  a 
cable  is  subject  to  hostile  attack,  the  responsibility  falls  upon  the  belligerent  and  not  upon  the 
neutral  to  prevent  cable  communication. 

A  more  important  reason,  however,  at  least  from  the  pomt  of  view  of  a  neutral  Government, 
is  that  messages  sent  out  from  a  wireless  station  in  neutral  territory  may  be  received  by  bel- 
ligerent warships  on  the  high  seas.  If  these  messages,  whether  plain  or  in  cipher,  direct  the 
movements  of  warships  or  convey  to  them  information  as  to  the  location  of  an  enemy's  public 
or  private  vessels,  the  neutral  territory  becomes  a  base  of  naval  operations,  to  permit  which 
would  be  essentially  imneutral. 

As  a  wireless  message  can  be  received  by  all  stations  and  vessels  within  a  given  radius, 
every  message  in  cipher,  whatever  its  intended  destination,  must  be  censored;  otherwise  military 
information  may  be  sent  to  warships  off  the  coast  of  a  neutral.  It  is  manifest  that  a  sub- 
marine cable  is  incapable  of  becoming  a  means  of  direct  communication  with  a  warship  on  the 
high  seas.  Hence  its  use  can  not,  as  a  :fule,  make  neutral  territory  a  base  for  the  direction  of 
naval  operations. 

(2)  Censorship  of  mails  and  in  some  cases  repeated  destruction  of  American  letters  on  neutral 
vessels. 

As  to  the  censorship  of  mails,  Germany  as  well  as  Great  Britain  has  pursued  tliis  course  in 
regard  to  private  letters  falling  into  their  hands.  The  unquestioned  right  to  adopt  a  measure 
of  this  sort  makes  objection  to  it  inadvisable. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  American  mail  on  board  of  Dutch  steamers  has  been  repeatedly 
destroyed.  No  evidence  to  this  effect  has  been  filed  with  the  Government,  and  tlierefore  no 
representations  have  been  made.  Until  such  a  case  is  presented  in  concrete  form,  this  Govern- 
ment would  not  be  justified  in  presenting  the  matter  to  the  offending  belligerent.  Complaints 
have  come  to  the  department  that  mail  on  board  neutral  steamers  has  been  opened  and  detained, 
but  there  seem  to  be  but  few  cases  where  the  mail  from  neutral  countries  has  not  been,  linally 
delivered.  Wlien  mail  is  sent  to  belligerent  countries  open  and  is  of  a  neutral  and  private  char- 
acter it  has  not  been  molested,  so  far  as  the  department  is  advised. 

(3)  Searching  of  American  vessels  for  German  and  Austrian  subjects  on  the  high  seas  and  in 
territorial  rvaters  of  a  belligerent. 

So  far  as  this  Government  has  been  informed,  no  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  with 
two  exceptions,  have  been  detained  or  searched  by  belligerent  warships  for  German  and  Austrian 
subjects.  One  of  the  exceptions  to  which  reference  is  made  is  now  the  subject  of  a  rigid  investi- 
gation, and  vigorous  representations  have  been  made  to  the  offending  Government.  The  other 
exception,  where  certain  German  passengers  were  made  to  sign  a  promise  not  to  take  part  in 
the  war,  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  ofTending  Go^'errmu•nt  with  a  declaration  that 
such  procedure,  if  true,  is  an  unwarranted  exercise  of  jurisdiction  over  .Vmerican  vessels  in  whicli 
this  Government  will  not  acquiesce. 

An  American  private  vessel  entering  vi)luntarily  the  territorisil  waters  of  a  belligerent 
becomes  subject  to  its  municipal  laws,  as  do  the  pei*sons  on  board  the  voss(>l. 

There  have  appeared  in  certain  publications  the  assertion  that  failure  t;)  protest  in  these 
cases  is  an  abandonment  of  tho  principle  for  wluch  the  United  States  wont  to  war  in  1812.  If 
the  failme  to  protest  were  true,  which  it  is  not,  the  principle  involved  is  entirely  different  from 


I 

i 


QUESTIONS   RELATING   TO    NEUTRALITY.  59 

tho  one  appoalofl  to  against  unjustifiable  impressmont  of  Atnoricans  in  the  British  Navy  in  time 
of  poaco. 

(4)  Submission  without  protest  to  British  violations  of  the  rules  regarding  absolute  and  condi- 
tiorml  contraband  as  laid  down  in  The  Ilagne  conventions,  the  declaration  of  London,  and  inter- 
national law. 

There  is  no  Hague  convention  wliich  deals  with  absolute  or  conditional  contraband,  and, 
us  tho  declaration  of  London  is  not  in  force,  tho  rules  of  international  law  only  apply.  As  to 
tho  articles  to  l)e  regaided  as  contraband,  there  is  no  gencrjil  agreement  between  nations.  It  is 
tho  practice  for  a  country,  cither  in  time  of  peace  or  after  tho  outbreak  of  war,  to  declare  tho 
articles  which  it  wiU  consider  as  a])solute  or  conditional  contraband.  It  is  true  that  a  neutral 
Government  is  seriously  affected  by  tliis  declaration,  as  tho  rights  of  its  subjects  or  citizens  may 
be  impaired.  But  tho  rights  and  interests  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  are  opposed  in  respect 
to  contraband  articles  and  trade  and  there  is  no  tribunal  to  whicli  c^uestions  of  difference  may 
be  rcadUy  submitted. 

Tho  record  of  tho  United  States  in  the  past  is  not  free  from  criticism.  When  neutral  this 
Government  has  stood  for  a  restricted  list  of  absolute  and  conchtional  contraband.  As  a  beUi''- 
erent,  wo  have  contended  for  a  liberal  list,  according  to  our  conception  of  the  necessities  of  the 
case. 

Tho  United  States  has  made  earnest  repres(>ntations  to  Great  Britain  in  regard  to  the 
seizure  and  detention  by  tho  Britisii  authorities  of  all  ^Vmerican  ships  or  cargoes  bona  fide 
destiiuul  to  neutral  ports  on  the  ground  that  such  seizures  and  detentions  were  contrary  to  tho 
existing  rules  of  international  law.  It  wiU  be  recaDcHl,  however,  that  American  courts  have 
establislied  various  rides  bearing  on  these  matters.  The  rule  of  "continuous  voyage"  has  been 
not  only  asserted  by  American  tribunals  but  extended  by  them.  They  have  exercised  the  right 
to  determine  from  tho  circumstances  whether  tho  ostensible  was  the  real  destination.  They 
have  held  that  tlie  shipment  of  articles  of  contraband  to  a  neutnd  port  "to  order,"  from  which, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  cargoes  had  been  transshipped  to  the  enemy,  is  corroborative  evidence  that 
the  cargo  is  really  destined  to  the  enemy  instead  of  to  the  neutral  poi-t  of  delivery.  It  is  thus 
seen  that  some  of  f-ho  doctrines  wliieh  aj^pear  to  liear  hai-slily  upon  neutrals  at  the  present  time 
are  analogous  to  or  outgrowtlis  from  policies  adopted  by  the  United  States  when  it  was  a  bellig- 
erent. The  Governnu^nt  therefore  can  not  consistently  protest  against  the  application  of  rules 
which  it  has  foUowc^l  in  the  past,  ludess  tliey  have  not  been  practiced  as  lierotofore. 

(5)  Acquiescence  without  protest  to  the  inclusion  of  copper  and  other  articles  in  the  British  lists 
of  absolute  contraband. 

Tho  United  States  has  now  under  consideration  the  question  of  tho  right  of  a  belligerent  to 
include  "copper  unvsTought"  in  its  list  of  absolute  contraband  instead  of  in  its  list  of  conditional 
contraband.  As  the  Go\ernment  of  the  United  States  has  in  the  past  placed  "aU  articles  from 
which  anuiiunition  is  manufactured"  in  its  contraband  list,  and  has  declared  copper  to  be  among 
such  materials,  it  necessarily  finds  some  embarrassment  in  dealing  with  the  subject. 

Moreover,  there  is  no  instance  of  tlie  United  States  acquiescing  in  Great  Britain's  seizure 
of  copper  sliipments.  In  every  case  in  wliich  it  has  been  done  vigorous  representations  have 
been  made  to  tho  British  Government,  and  tho  representatives  of  the  United  States  have  pressed 
for  the  release  of  tho  sliipmenis. 

(6)  Submission  without  protest  to  interference  with  American  trade  to  neutral  countries  in  con- 
ditional and  absolute  contraband. 

The  fact  that  the  commerce  of  tlio  United  States  is  interrupted  by  Great  Britain  is  conse- 
quent upon  the  superiority  of  lier  navy  on  tho  higli  seas.  History  shows  that  whenever  a  country 
has  possessed  that  superiority  our  trade  has  been  interrupted  and  that  few  articles  essential  to 
the  prosecution  of  the  war  have  been  allowed  to  reach  its  enemy  from  this  country.  The  depart- 
ment's recent  note  t(^  tlio  British  Government,  which  luvs  been  made  public,  in  regard  to  deten- 
tions and  seizures  of  American  vessels  and  cargoes,  is  a  complete  answer  to  this  complaint. 

Certain  other  complaints  appear  aimed  at  the  loss  of  profit  in  trade,  which  must  include  at 
least  in  part  trade  in  contraband  with  Germany;  wliile  otlier  complaints  demand  the  prohibition 
of  trade  in  contraband,  wliich  appear  to  refer  to  trade  with  the  allies. 

(7)  Submission  without  protest  to  interruption  of  trade  in  conditional  contraband  consigned  to 
private  persons  in  Germany  and  Austria,  thereby  supporting  the  policy  of  Or  eat  Britain  to  cut  ojf 
all  supplies  from  Germany  and  Austria. 

As  no  American  vessel  so  far  as  known  has  attempted  to  carry  conditional  contraband,  to 
Germany  or  Austria-Hungary,  no  ground  of  complaint  has  arisen  out  of  the  seizure  or  condemna- 
tion by  Great  Britain  of  an  American  vessel  with  a  belligerent  destination.  Until  a  case  arises 
and  tho  Government  has  taken  action  upon  it,  criticism  is  premature  and  unwarranted.  The 
United  States  in  its  note  of  December  28  to  the  British  Government  strongly  contended  for  the 
principle  of  freedom  of  trade  in  articles  of  conditional  contraband  not  destined  to  the  bellig- 
erent's forces. 


60  QUESTIONS   KELATING   TO    NEUTRALITY. 

(S)  Sithnission-  to  British  interference  with  trade  in  petroleum,  ruhber,  leather,  v;ool,  etc. 

Potrol  and  othor  potrolouin  products  have  been  proclaimed  by  Groat  Britain  as  contraband 
of  war.  In  view  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  such  products  to  the  use  of  submarines,  aeroplanes, 
and  motors,  the  United  States  Government  has  not  yet  reached  the  conclusion  that  they  are 
improperly  included  in  a  list  of  contraband.  Military  operations  to-day  are  largely  a  question 
of  motive  power  through  mechanical  devices.  It  is  therefore  difhcult  to  argue  successfully 
against  the  inclusion  of  petroleum  among  tlio  articles  of  contraband.  As,  to  the  detention  of 
cargoes  of  petroleum  going  to  ncaitral  countries,  this  Government  has  thus  far  successfully 
obtained  the  release  in  every  ca^se  of  detention  or  seizure  wliich  has  been  brought  to  its  attention. 

Great  Britain  and  France  have  placed  rubber  on  the  absolute  contraband  list  and  leather 
on  the  conditional  contra])and  list.  Rubber  is  extensively  used  m  the  manufacture  and  opera- 
tion of  motors  and,  like  petrol,  is  regarded  by  some  authorities  as  essential  to  motive  power 
to-day.  Leather  is  even  more  widely  used  in  cavahy  and  infantry  ecpiipment.  It  is  imdcrstood 
that  both  rubber  and  leather,  together  with  wool,  have  been  embargoed  by  most  of  the  belligerent 
countries.  It  wiU  be  recalled  that  the  United  States  has  in  the  past  exercised  the  right  of  embargo 
upon  exports  of  any  commodity  which  might  aid  the  enemy's  cause. 

(9)  The  United  States  hus  not  interfered  with  the  sale  to  Great  Britain  and  her  allies  of  arms, 
ammunition,  horses,  uniforms,  and  other  munitions  of  war,  although  such  sales  prolong  the  conflict. 

There  is  no  power  in  the  Executive  to  prevent  the  sale  of  ammunition  to  the  belligerents. 

The  duty  of  a  neutral  to  restrict  trade  in  munitions  of  war  has  never  been  imposed  ])y  inter- 
national law  or  by  municipal  statute.  It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  this  Government  to  prevent 
the  shipment  of  anns  or  ammunition  into  belligerent  tcmtory,  except  in  the  case  of  neighboring 
American  Ilepublics,  and  then  only  when  civil  strife  prevailed.  Even  to  this  extent  the  bellig- 
erents in  the  present  conflict,  when  they  were  neutrals,  have  never,  so  far  as  the  records  disclose, 
limited  the  sale  of  munitions  of  war.  It  is  only  necessary  to  point  to  the  enormous  quantities  of 
anns  and  ammunition  furnished  by  manufacturers  in  Gennany  to  the  belligerents  m  the  Russo- 
Japanese  war  and  in  the  recent  Balkan  wars  to  estabhsh  the  general  recognition  of  the  propriety 
of  the  trade  by  a  neutral  nation. 

It  may  be  added  that  on  the  15th  of  December  last  the  German  ambassador,  by  du'ection  of 
his  Government,  presented  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  of  the  Imperial  German  Government 
which,  among  other  things,  set  forth  the  attitude  of  that  Government  toward  traffic  in  contraband 
of  war  by  citizens  of  neutral  countries.  The  Imperial  Government  stated  that  "under  the 
general  principles  of  international  law,  no  exception  can  be  taken  to  neutral  States  letting  war 
material  go  to  Germany's  enemies  from  or  through  neutral  territory,"  and  that  the  adversaries 
of  Germany  in  the  present  war  are,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Imperial  Government,  authorized  to 
"draw  on  the  United  States  contraband  of  war  and  especially  arms  worth  billions  of  marks." 
These  principles,  as  the  ambassador  stated,  have  been  accepted  by  the  United  States  Government 
in  the  statement  issued  by  the  Department  of  .State  on  October  15  last,  entitled  "Neutrahty  and 
trade  in  contraband."  Acting  in  conformity  with  the  propositions  there  set  forth,  the  United 
States  has  itself  taken  no  part  in  contraband  trafhc,  and  has,  so  far  as  possible,  lent  its  influence 
toward  equal  treatment  for  aU  belligerents  in  the  matter  of  purchasing  arms  and  ammunition  of 
private  persons  in  the  United  States. 

(10)  Th^e  United  States  has  not  suppressed  the  sale  of  dumdum  hullet-s  to  Great  Britain. 

On  December  5  last  the  German  ambassador  addressed  a  note  to  the  department,  stating 
that  the  British  Government  had  ordered  from  the  Winchester  Repeating  Arms  Co.  20,000 
"riot  guns,"  model  1897,  and  50,000,000  "buckshot  cartridges"  for  use  in  such  guns.  The 
department  replied  that  it  saw  a  published  statement  of  the  Winchester  Co.,  the  correctness  of 
which  the  company  has  confinned  to  the  department  by  telegraph.  In  this  statement  the 
company  categoricaUy  denies  that  it  has  received  an  order  for  such  guns  and  cartridgo>s  from 
or  made  any  sales  of  such  material  to  the  British  Government,  or  to  any  other  Government 
engaged  in  the  present  war.  The  ambassador  further  called  attention  to  "information,  the 
accuracy  of  which  is  not  to  be  doubted,"  that  8,000,000  cartridges  fitted  with  "mushroom 
bullets"  had  been  delivered  suace  October  of  this  year  b}-  the  Union  MetaUic  Cartridge  Co.  for 
the  armament  of  the  English  army.  In  reply  the  department  referred  to  the  letter  of  December 
10,  1914,  of  the  Remington  Arms-Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.,  of  New  York,  to  the  ambassador, 
called  forth  by  certam  newspaper  reports  of  statements  alleged  to  have  been  made  by  the 
ambassador  in  regard  to  the  sales  by  that  company  of  soft-nosed  bidlets. 

.  From  this  letter,  a  copy  of  which  wjis  sent  to  the  department  by  the  company,  it  appears 
that  instead  of  8,000,000  cartridges  ha\nng  been  sold,  only  a  little  over  117,000  were  manufac- 
tured and  109,000  were  sold.  The  letter  further  asserts  that  these  cartridges  were  made  to 
supply  a  demand  for  a  better  sporting  cartridge  with  a  soft-nosed  bullet  than  had  been  manu- 
factured theretofore,  and  that  such  cartridges  can  not  be  used  in  the  military  rifles  of  any  foreign 
powers.     The  company  adds  that  its  statements  can  be  substantiated  and  that  it  is  ready  to 


QUESTIONS   RELATING   TO    NEUTRALITY.  61 

give  the  ambassador  any  cvid(>nco  that  he  may'requiro  on  these  points.  The  department  further 
stated  that  it  was  also  in  receipt  from  the  company  of  a  complete  detailed  list  of  the  persons  to 
whom  these  cartridges  ivere  sold,  and  that  from  tiiis  list  it  appeared  that  the  cartridges  were 
sold  to  finns  in  lots  of  20  to  2,000  and  one  lot  each  of  3,000,  4,000,  and  5,000.  Of  these  only  960 
cartridges  went  to  British  Nortli  America  and  100  to  British  East  Africa. 

The  department  added  that,  if  the  ambassador  could  furnish  evidence  that  this  or  any  other 
company  is  manufacturing  and  selling  for  the  use  of  tlie  contending  armies  in  Europe  cartridges 
wliose  use  would  contravene  The  Hague  conventions,  the  department  would  be  glad  to  be 
furnished  witli  tliis  evidence,  and  that  the  President  would,  in  case  any  American  company  is 
shown  to  l)e  engaged  in  this  tradic,  use  his  influence  to  prevent,  so  far  as  possible,  sales  of  such 
ammunition  to  the  powei-s  engaged  in  tlic  European  war,  without  regard  to  whether  it  is  the 
duty  of  this  Government,  upon  legal  or  conventional  grounds,  to  take  such  action. 

The  substance  of  botli  the  ambassador's  note  and  the  department's  reply  have  appeared 
in  the  press. 

The  department  has  received  no  oilier  complaints  of  iilleged  sales  of  dumdum  bullets  by 
American  citizens  to  belligerent  Governments. 

(11)  British  warships  are  fcrmitUd  to  lie  off  American  ports  and  intercept  neutral  vessels. 
The  complaint  is  imjustified  from  the  fact  that  representations  were  made  to  the  British 

Government  that  the  presence  of  war  vessels  in  the  vicinity  of  New  York  Harbor  was  offensive 
to  this  Government  and  a  similar  complaint  was  made  to  the  Japanese  Government  as  to  one 
of  its  cruisers  in  the  vicinity  of  the  port  of  Honolulu.  In  both  cases  the  warships  were  with- 
drawn. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  in  1863  the  department  took  the  position  that  captures  made  by  its 
vessels  after  hovering  about  neutral  ports  would  not  be  regarded  as  valid.  In  the  Franco- 
Prussian  vVar  President  Grant  issued  a  proclamation  warning  belligerent  warships  against 
hoveruig  in  the  vicinity  of  .Vmerican  ports  for  purposes  of  observation  or  hostile  acts.  The  same 
poli(;y  has  been  maintained  in  the  present  war,  and  in  all  of  the  recent  proclamations  of  neutrality 
the  President  states  that  such  practice  by  belligerent  wai-ships  is  "unfriendly  and  offensive." 

(12)  Great  Britain  and  her  allies  are  allowed  without  protest  to  disregard  American  citizenship 
papers  and  passports. 

American  citizenship  papers  have  l)ecn  (hsregarded  in  a  comparatively  few  instances  by 
Great  Britain,  but  the  same  is  true  of  iill  the  belligerents.  Bearers  of  American  passports  have 
been  arrested  in  all  the  countries  at  war.  In  every  case  of  apparent  illegal  arrest  the  United 
States  Government  has  entered  vigorous  protests  with  request  for  release.  The  department 
docs  not  know  of  any  cases,  except  one  or  two,  which  are  st'dl  under  investigation,  in  which 
naturjilized  Germans  have  not  been  released  upon  representations  by  this  Government.  There 
have,  liowever,  come  to  the  department's  notice  authentic  cases  in  which  American  passports 
liave  I)een  fraudulently  obtained  and  used  by  certain  German  subjects. 

Tlie  Department  of  Justice  has  recently  apprehended  at  least  four  persons  of  German 
nationality  who,  it  is  alleged,  obtained  American  passports  under  pretense  of  bemg  American 
citizens  and  for  the  purpose  of  returning  to  Germany  without  molestation  by  her  enemies 
during  the  voyage.  There  are  indications  that  a  systematic  plan  had  been  devised  to  obtain 
American  pass])orts  through  fraud  for  the  piu-pose  of  seciiring  safe  passage  for  German  ofRcers 
and  reservists  desh'ing  to  return  to  Germany.  Such  fraudulent  use  of  passports  by  Germans 
themselves  can  have  no  other  effect  than  to  cast  suspicion  upon  American  passports  in  general. 
New  regulations,  however,  requiring  among  other  things  the  attaching  of  a  photograph  of  the 
bearer  to  his  passport,  under  the  seal  of  the  Department  of  State,  and  the  vigilance  of  the 
Department  of  Justice,  will  doubtless  prevent  any  further  misuse  of  American  passports. 

(13)  Cliange  of  policy  in  regard  to  loans  to  iellige  rents. 

War  loans  in  this  country  were  disapproved  because  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  neu- 
trality. There  is  a  clearly  defined  difference  between  a  war  loan  and  the  purchase  of  arms  and 
ammunition.  The  policy  of  disapproving  of  war  loans  affects  all  go\)ernments  alilce,  so  that  the 
disapproval  is  not  an  unneutral  act.  The  case  is  entirely  different  in  the  matter  of  arms  and 
ammunition,  because  prohibition  of  export  not  only  might  not,  but  in  this  case  would  not, 
operate  equally  upon  the  nations  at  war.  Then,  too,  the  reason  given  for  the  disapproval  of 
war  loans  is  supported  by  other  considerations  which  are  absent  ui  the  case  jjresented  by  the 
sale  of  arms  and  ammunition.  The  taking  of  money  out  of  the  United  States  during  such  a 
war  as  this  might  seriously  embaiTass  the  Government  in  case  it  needed  to  borrow  money  and 
it  miglit  also  seriously  impair-  this  Nation's  ability  to  assist  the  neutral  nations  which,  though 
not  participants  m  the  war,  are  compelled  to  bear  a  heavy  bm-den  on  account  of  the  war,  and, 
again,  a  war  loan,  if  offered  for  popular  subscription  in  the  United  States,  would  be  taken  up 
chiefly  by  those  who  are  in  sympathy  witli  the  belligcrcMit  seeking  the  loan.  The  result  would 
be  that  great  numbers  of  the  American  j)eople  might  become  more  earnest  partisans,  having 


62  QUESTIOXS   RELATINf!    TO    NEUTRALITY. 

matorial  interost  in  the  surrcss  of  tho  bolligcront,  whoso  ])oih1s  thoy  hold.  These  purchases 
wouhl  not  he  confined  to  a  few,  but  would  spread  generally  throughout  the  country',  so  that 
the  people  would  be  divided  into  groups  of  partisans,  which  woidd  result  in  intense  bitterness 
and  might  cause  an  undesiral)le,  if  not  a  serious,  situation.  On  the  other  hand,  contracts  for 
and  sales  of  contraband  are  mere  matters  of  trade.  The  manufacturer,  unless  peculiarly  sen- 
timental, would  sell  to  one  belligerent  as  readily  as  he  would  to  another.  No  general  spirit  of 
partisanship  is  aroused — no  sympathies  excited.  Tlie  whole  transaction  is  merely  a  matter  of 
business. 

This  Government  has  not  hevn  advised  that  an^'  general  loans  have  been  made  by  foreign 
governments  in  this  country  since  the  President  exjiressed  his  wish  tliat  loans  of  this  character 
should  not  be  made. 

(l-J)  Siihmission  to  ai-rest  of  native-bom  Americans  on  neutral  vessels  and  in  British  ports 
and  tJieir  imprisonment. 

Tlie  general  charge  as  to  the  arrest  of  Ameriean-l)orn  citizens  on  board  neutral  vessels  and 
in  British  ]X)rts,  the  ignoring  of  their  passports,  and  theii*  confinement  ui  jails  requires  evi- 
dence to  support  it.  That  there  have  been  cases  of  injustice  of  this  sort  is  unquestionablj- 
true,  but  Americans  in  Germanj^  have  suffered  in  this  way  as  Americans  have  in  Great  Britain. 
This  Government  has  considered  that  the  majority  of  these  cases  resulted  from  overzealousness 
on  the  part  of  subordinate  officials  in  both  countries.  Every  case  M'hich  has  been  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  Department  of  State  has  been  promptly  investigated  and,  if  the  facts 
warranted,  a  demand  for  release  has  been  made. 

(15)  Indifference  to  confinement  of  noncombatants  in  detention  camps  in  England  and  France. 

As  to  the  detention  of  noncombatants  confined  in  concentration  camps,  all  the  belliger- 
ents, with  perhaps  the  exception  of  Servia  and  Russia,  have  made  similar  complaints  and 
those  for  whom  this  Government  is  acting  have  asked  investigations,  which  representatives  of 
this  Government  have  made  impartially.  Their  reports  have  shown  that  the  treatment  of 
prisoners  is  generally  as  good  as  possible  luider  the  conditions  in  all  comitries,  and  that  there 
is  no  more  reason  to  say  that  they  are  mistreated  in  one  country  than  in  another  country  or 
that  this  Government  has  manifested  an  indifference  in  the  matter.  As  this  department's 
efforts  at  investigations  seemed  to  develop  bitterness  between  the  coimtries,  the  department 
on  November  20  sent  a  circular  instruction  to  its  representatives  not  to  undertake  further 
investigation  of  concentration  camps. 

But  at  the  special  request  of  the  German  Government  that  Mr.  Jackson,  former  American 
minister  at  Bucharest,  now  attached  to  the  American  Embassy  at  Berlin,  make  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  prison  camps  in  England,  in  addition  to  the  investigations  already  made,  the 
department  has  consented  to  dispatch  Mr.  Jackson  on  this  special  mission. 

(16)  Failure  to  prevent  transshipment  of  British  troops  and  war  material  across  the  territory 
of  the  United  States. 

The  department  has  had  no  specific  case  of  the  passage  of  convoys  of  troops  across  Amer- 
ican territory  brought  to  its  notice.  There  have  been  rumors  to  this  effect,  but  no  actual 
facts  have  been  presented.  The  transshipment  of  reservists  of  all  belUgerents  who  have 
requested  the  privilege  has  been  permitted  on  condition  that  they  travel  as  individuals  and 
not  as  orgaiiized,  miiformed,  or  armed  bodies.  The  German  Embassy  has  advised  the  depart- 
ment that  it  would  not  be  likely  to  avail  itself  of  the  privilege,  but  Germany's  ally,  Austria- 
Hungary,  did  so. 

Only  one  case  raismg  the  question  of  the  transit  of  war  material  o\vned  by  a  belHgerent 
across  United  States  territory  has  come  to  the  de})artment's  notice.  Tliis  was  a  request  on 
the  part  of  the  Canadian  Government  for  permission  to  ship  equipment  across  Alaska  to  the 
sea.     The  request  was  refused. 

(17)  Treatment  and  final  internment  of  German  steamship  "Geier"  and  the  collier  "Locksun" 
at  Honolulu. 

The  Geier  entered  Honolulu  on  October  15  in  an  imseaworthy  condition.  The  command- 
ing officer  reported  the  necessity  of  extensive  repairs  which  would  require  an  indefinite  period 
for  completion.  The  vessel  was  allowed  the  generous  period  of  three  weeks  to  November  7  to 
make  repairs  and  leave  the  port,  or,  failing  to  do  so,  to  be  interned.  A  longer  period  woidd 
have  been  contrary  to  mternational  practice,  which  does  not  permit  a  vessel  to  remain  for  a 
long  time  in  a  neutral  port  for  the  piu-pose  of  repairing  a  generally  run-down  condition  due  to 
long  sea  service.  Soon  after  the  German  cruiser  arrived  at  Honolulu  a  Japanese  cruiser  appeared 
off  the  port  and  the  commander  of  the  Geier  chose  to  intern  the  vessel  rather  than  to  dejiart 
from  the  harl)or. 

Shortly  after  the  Geier  entered  the  port  of  Honolulu  the  steamer  Locksun  aiTiveil.  It  was 
fomid  that  this  vessel  had  dehvered  coal  to  the  Geier  en  route  and  had  accompanied  her  toward 
Hawaii.  As  she  had  thus  constituted  herself  a  tender  or  colUer  to  the  Geier  siu>  was  accorded 
the  same  treatment  and  interned  on  November  7. 


QUESTIONS   REI.ATIXO   TO   NEUTRALITY.  63 

(18)  Unfairness  to  Gfrmany  in  nihs  rdative  to  coalinf]  of  wfir.ilips  in  Panama  Canal  Zone. 
By  proclamation  of  Novombor  13,  1014,  certain  special  restrictions  -were  placed  on  the 

coaling;  of  warships  or  their  tenders  or  coUicrs  in  tlio  Canal  Zone.  These  regulations  were 
framed  through  the  collaboration  of  the  Slate,  Navy,  and  War  Departments  and  without  the 
slightest  reference  to  favoritism  to  the  IjeUigerents.  Before  these  regulations  were  proclaimed, 
war  vessels  could  procure  coal  of  the  Panama  Railway  in  the  zone  ports,  but  no  belligerent 
vessels  are  knowni  to  have  done  so.  I'ndcr  the  proclamation  fuel  may  be  taken  on  by  bellig- 
erent warsliips  only  with  the  consent  of  the  canal  authorities  and  in  such  amounts  as  will  enable 
them  to  reach  the  nearest  accessible  neutral  port;  and  the  amount  so  taken  on  shall  be  deducted 
from  the  amount  procurable  in  United  States  ports  within  three  months  thereafter.  Now,  it  is 
charged  the  United  States  has  showai  partiality  because  Great  Britain  and  not  Germany  happens 
to  have  colonies  in  the  near  vicinity  where  British  ships  may  coal,  while  Germany  has  no  such 
coaling  facilities.  Thus,  it  is  intimated  the  United  States  shoidd  balance  the  inequalities  of 
geograpliical  position  by  refusing  to  allow  any  warships  of  bellig(>r(-n<s  to  coal  in  the  canal 
until  the  war  is  over.  As  no  German  warship  has  sought  to  obtain  coal  in  the  Canal  Zone  the 
charge  of  discrimination  rests  upon  a  possibility  which  during  several  months  of  warfare  has 
failed  to  materialize. 

(19)  Failure  to  protest  against  the  modifications  oj  tlie  Declaration  oj  London  hy  the  British 
Government. 

The  German  Foreign  Office  presented  to  the  diplomats  in  Berlin  a  memorandum  dated 
October  10,  calling  attention  to  violations  of  and  changes  in  the  Declaration  of  London  by  the 
British  Government  and  inquiring  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  toward  such  action 
on  the  part  of  the  allies.  The  substance  of  the  memorandum  was  forthwith  telegraphed  to 
the  deimrtment  on  October  22  and  was  replied  to  shortly  thereafter  to  the  effect  that  the  United 
States  had  withdra^vn  its  suggestion,  made  early  in  the  war,  that  for  the  sake  of  uniformity 
the  Declaration  of  London  should  bo  adopted  as  a  temporary  code  of  naval  warfare  during  the 
present  war,  owing  to  the  unwillingness  of  the  belligerents  to  accept  the  declaration  without 
changes  and  modifications,  and  that  thenceforth  the  United  States  would  msist  that  the  rights 
of  the  United  States  and  its  citizens  in  the  war  should  be  governed  by  the  existing  rules  of 
international  law. 

As  this  Government  is  not  now  interested  in  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  of  London  by 
the  belligerents,  the  modifications  by  the  belligerents  in  that  code  of  naval  warfare  are  of  no 
concern  to  it  except  as  they  adversely  affect  the  rights  of  the  L^nited  States  and  those  of  its 
citizens  as  defined  by  international  law.  In  so  far  as  those  rights  have  been  mfrmged  the 
department  has  made  every  effort  to  obtaui  redress  for  the  losses  sustained. 

(20)  General  unfriendly  attitude  oj  Government  totvard  Germany  and  Austria. 

If  any  ^'Werican  citizens,  partisans  of  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary,  feel  that  this  admin- 
istration is  acting  in  a  way  injurious  to  the  cause  of  those  countries,  this  feeling  results  from  the 
fact  that  on  the  high  seas  the  German  and  Austro-Hungarian  naval  power  is  thus  far  inferior 
to  the  British.  It  is  the  business  of  a  belligerent  operating  on  the  high  seas,  not  the  duty  of 
a  neutral,  to  prevent  contraband  from  reaching  an  enemy.  Those  in  this  country  who  sympa- 
thize with  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary  appear  to  assume  that  some  obligation  rests  upon 
tliis  Government  m  the  performance  of  its  neutral  duty  to  prevent  all  trade  in  contraband, 
and  thus  to  equalize  the  difference  due  to  the  relative  naval  strength  of  the  belligerents.  No 
such  obligation  exists;  it  woidd  be  an  imneutral  act,  an  act  of  partiality  on  the  part  of  this 
Government  to  adopt  such  a  policy  if  the  Executive  had  the  power  to  do  so.  If  Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary  can  not  import  contraband  from  this  coimtrj'^,  it  is  not,  because  of  that  fact, 
the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  close  its  markets  to  the  allies,  llie  markets  of  this  country 
are  open  upon  erjual  terms  to  all  the  world,  to  every  nation,  belligerent  or  neutral. 

The  foregoing  categorical  replies  to  specific  complaints  is  sufficient  answer  to  the  charge 
of  imfriendliness  to  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary. 

I  am,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bktan. 
Hon.  WrixiAM  J.  Stone, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 


PART  VII. 


TRANSMISSION  OF  MAIL  OF  AMERICAN  DIPLOMATIC  AND 
CONSULAR  OFFICERS. 


455G°— 15 5  65 


I 


I 


TRANSMISSION  OF  MAIL  OF  AMERICAN  DIPLOMATIC  AND  CONSULAR 

OFFICERS. 


TTie  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  Penfield} 
File  No.  12t.0665a. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  vSt.vte, 
Washington,  Novemher  25,  191. 'i. 
This  govcnimoiit  is  dpsirous  of  ostabli.^hing  uniform  rcjijuliitions  for  transmission  of  corre- 
spondence of  American  diplomatic  and  considar  officers  in  l)eUigerent  territory.  Inquire  of 
Austro-Hungarian  goveniment  whether  it  would  agi-ee  to  the  following  regulations  for  American 
dijilomatic  and  consular  officers  in  Austria-Hungary:  Fii-st,  all  correspondence  between  American 
diplomatic  and  consular  officers  within  Austrian  territory  to  be  inviolable  if  under  seal  of  office; 
second,  no  correspondence  of  private  individuals  to  be  forwarded  by  diplomatic  and  consular 
officers  inider  official  cover  or  seal;  third,  official  correspondence  between  American  diplomatic 
officers  residing  in  different  countries  is  not  to  be  opened  or  molested  if  under  seal  of  office; 
fourth,  official  correspondence  under  seal  of  office  between  Department  of  State  and  American 
diplomatic  and  consular  officers  is  not  to  be  opened  or  molested;  fiftli,  pouches  under  seal 
passing  between  American  diplomatic  missions  by  mail  or  courier  not  to  be  opened  or  molested; 
sixth,  correspondence  other  than  that  described  in  foregoing  sent  by  ordinary  mail  to  be  subject 
to  usual  censorship.  Similar  inquiries  being  made  of  othor  belligerent  governments  in  respect 
to  correspondence  of  j\jnerican  officers  in  their  dominions. 

Brtan. 


File  No.  124.0665/23. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Penfield. 

No.  881.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  20,  1915. 
Sir:  Referring  to  the  Department's  telegram  No.  305,  of  November  25,  1914,  with  regard 
to  the  establishment  of  uniform  regulations  for  the  transmission  of  the  correspondence  of 
American  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  in  belligerent  teri-itory,  and  to  your  telegraphic  reply 
No.  334,  of  December  8,  1914,  statmg  that  the  Austro-Hungarian  Government  have  agreed  to 
the  proposal  of  this  Government,  there  is  now  transmitted  herewith,  a  copy  of  a  telegram,  dated 
April  23,  1915,  which  was  sent  to  the  missions  accredited  to  the  belligerent  countries  with  the 
exception  of  Vienna,  concerning  the  use  of  the  official  pouches. 

In  view  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Government's  prompt  acquiescence  in  the  Department's 
proposal  of  November  25,  1914,  and  the  fact  that  the  arrangement  is  apparently  working  out 
satisfactorily,  the  information  contained  in  the  inclosure  herewith  was  not  sent  to  you  by 
telegraph. 

I  am,  etc. 

For  the  Secretarj'  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


[Inclosure.) 
File  No.  124.0605/23  A. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Sharp. 

[Telegram.) 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  23,  191.^. 
DepartmentH  310,  November  25,  1!»11,  and  lircular  Docomber  18,  1914.'- 

In  view  of  uuderstandiiig  between  United  States  and  liclligerent  countries  regarding  iaviolability  of  Department's 
dipIoniati<-  and  oousnlar  correspondenre,  the  following  rules  established  by  the  Department  are  hereby  called  to  your 
attention: 

1.  Communirations  from  ])rivate  individuals  or  institutions  abroad  to  private  individuals  or  institutions  in  United 
States  should  not  be  sent  in  Dopartniont  pouchos. 

'  Same,  mutatis  mutamli'^,  to  the  Embas.sies  at  London,  Berlin,  Paris,  Toltyo,  and  Constantinople,  and  the  Legation  at  Bucharest. 
2  Not  printed. 

67 


68  TBANSMISSION   OF   MATI..  J 

2.  Personal  Irtlora  from  TTnitcd  Stales  r)ij)l(imatic  or  ('(iDRiilur  orticcrs  or  pmployoos  of  Amorican  missions  or  ron- 
siilalcs  al)roa<l  addressed  to  private  itidividiialn  in  I  iiited  StateB  may  be  Hent  in  pouclies,  bnt  sliould  be  censored  by 
heads  of  missioMH  wit  h  a  ^  iew  to  prevent  trangmisHion  of  statements  which  would  otherwise  be  censored  by  Governments, 
and  shcmUl  bo  left  nusealcd  with  postage  fnlly  prepaid. 

3.  Oflicial  corrc8i)ondence  of  diplomatic  and  consular  oflicers  to  individuals  outside  of  Department  should  ]••■ 
marked  ''Ollirial  businesM,"  and  should  bo  left  unsealed. 

-I.  Coniniunications  from  nations  at  war  to  agents  in  the  laiiled  Stales  should  noi  Ik-  transmitted  through  poui-hes. 
6.  Tlic  I><'i)artnieiit  reserves  right  to  censor  all  mail  received  in  the  pouches. 

Bkya.s. 


i 


f 


PART   VIII. 


CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS  TRANSMITTED  BY  CABLE  AND  WIRELESS. 


69 


CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS  TRANSMITTED  BY  CABLE  AND  WIRELESS. 


Executive  Order. 

Whereas  Proclamations  having  been  issued  by  me  declaring  the  neutrality  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  tlie  wars  now  existing  between  various  European  nations;  and 

Whereas  it  is  desirable  to  take  precautions  to  msure  the  enforcement  of  said  Proclamations 
hi  so  far  as  tlie  use  of  radio  comnmnication  is  concerned; 

It  is  now  ordered,  ])y  virtue  of  authority  vested  hi  me  to  establish  regulations  on  the  subject, 
that  all  radio  stations  withui  tlio  jurisdiction  of  the  United  Stattis  of  iVmerica  are  hereby 
proliibited  from  transmitting  or  receiving  for  delivery  messages  of  an  unneutral  nature,  and 
from  in  any  way  rendering  to  any  one  of  the  belligerents  any  unneutral  service,  during  the 
continuance  of  hostilities. 

Tlie  enforcement  of  this  order  is  hereby  delegated  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  who  is 
authorized  and  directed  to  take  such  action  ui  tlie  premises  as  to  him  may  appear  nccessaiy. 

This  order  to  take  effect  from  and  after  this  date. 

WooDRow  Wilson. 

The  White  House,  3  August,  1914. 

[No.  2011.] 


File  No.  841.721/18. 

TTie  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  op  State, 

Washington,  August  15,  1914. 
The  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  has  requested  the  department   to   make  such 
representations  to  the  British  Government  as  will  admit  of  a  more  reasonable  attitude  with 
respect  to  censorehips  of  cable  messages  by  the  War  Office  at  London. 

The  company  claims  that  by  reason  of  unnecessary  exactions  in  tlie  way  of  full  addresses 
and  signatures  to  every  message,  no  matter  how  innocent  its  character,  the  capacity  of  the 
workuig  Atlantic  cables  has  been  cut  down  just  50  per  cent  on  account  of  the  fact  that  these 
requirements  have  served  to  exactly  double  the  number  of  wortls  of  the  average  message,  which 
not  only  reduces  the  capacity  of  tlie  cables  at  a  time  when  the  demand  upon  tlie  cables  exceed 
their  capacity,  but  also  doubles  the  cost  to  the  public  without  any  possible  apparent  advantage 
to  the  military  operations  in  England. 

It  is  urged  by  the  company  that  requiring  full  addresses  in  cases  of  well-known  firms  and 
fuU  signatures  is  wholly  unnecessary.  The  company  also  protests  against  the  action  of  the 
British  censors  forbiddmg  company  to  make  inquiries  respecting  the  delivery  of  messages. 
You  will  attempt  to  secure  modification  of  reported  British  restrictions  mentioned  herein. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  841.731/A. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  11'.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  22,  1914. 
Departnu-nt  is  informeil  that  British  censoi-s  wiH  not  pass  the  usual  service  correspondence 
provided  for  ui  Internatiomd  Telegraph  Kegulatiou  whereby  <Trors  made  ui  transmission  are 
corrected  without  expense  to  public,  and  require  that  all  such  corrections  shall  be  made  by 
private  messages  exchanged  between  addressees  and  sentlers  and  paid  for.  As  this  restriction 
apparently  possesses  no  possible  military  features,  but  beare  solely  upon  an  administrative 
feature  of  international  cable  service  and  greatly  increases  cost  to  cablmg  public,  make  repre- 
sentations to  British  Goverrmicnt  looking  to  removal  of  present  embargo  on  repetition  requests. 

Bryan. 
71 


72  CENSORSHIP  OK  TELEGRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/a. 

Anibassador   11'.  //.  /'«</«  to  the  Sicrrtanj  of  State. 

No.  419.]  Ameuicax  Emb.\ssy, 

London,  August  24,  1914. 
Sm:  With  reference  to  your  telegram  of  August  15,  5  p.  m.,  I  htive  the  honor  to  transmit 
herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  I  have  just  received  from  the  Foreign  Office  touching  the  censorship 
of  telegraphic  messages  passmg  over  the  Atlantic  cables. 
I  have,  etc. 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


[luclnsurp.] 
The  British  Secretary  of  Stale  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Amhassaihr  W.  H.  Page. 

Foreign  Office,  August  ^.1,  J!)I4- 

The  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  presents  liis  compliments  to  the  United  States  Ambassador  and  has 
the  honor  to  refer  to  the  memorandum  which  the  United  States  Embassy  were  good  enough  to  communicate  to  this 
office  on  the  17th  instant,  on  the  subject  of  certain  representations  made  by  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company 
to  the  Slate  Department  in  resjiect  of  the  censorship  of  telegraphic  messages  passing  over  the  Atlantic  cables. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  has  the  honor  to  point  out  that,  in  order  to  enable  the  censors  to  carry  out  their  instructions 
without  unduly  delaying  the  delivery  of  telegrams,  it  is  essential  that  they  should  be  able  to  tell  at  a  glance  to  whom 
a  message  is  addressed  and  from  whom  it  emanates.  Subject  to  this  condition  being  observed,  the  British  censors 
have  not  been  requiring  full  addresses  or  signatures  in  the  case  of  really  well-known  firms. 

As  regards  enquiries  respecting  the  delivery  of  such  messages  as  may  have  been  stopped  in  the  public  interest 
it  does  not  appear  to  be  practicable  to  remove  the  prohibition  on  such  enquiries  without  impairing  the  usefulness  of 
the  censorship. 

\\'hile  therefore  they  are  anxious  to  inconvenience  the  company  as  little  as  possible,  His  Majesty's  Government 
regret  that  they  are  unable,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  to  modify  the  censorship  regulations  to  the  extent  desired. 


File  No.  841.731. 

Ambassador  W.  11.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  August  27,  1914. 
Please  inform  all  foreign  missions  concerned  that  British  censorship  regulations  provided 
that  only  messages  passing  between  diplomatic  missions  and  the  Govermnent  at  Washington 
may  go  in  cipher.     All  others  must  be  open. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731246A. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  ir.  11.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

WasJdngton,  Sejitember  2,  1914- 

Department's  August  15,  5  p.  m.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  again  requests 
Department  to  endeavor  secure  still  further  modification  of  British  censorship  regulations 
with  reference  to  code  addresses  and  signatures.  Company  represents  that  since  code  addresses 
are  merely  condensation  of  plain  addresses  they  can  not  be  used  to  convey  hidden  meaning, 
but  simjily  represent  registration  made  at  point  of  destmation  to  indicate  name  and  address 
of  person  for  whom  message  intended.  Company  further  represents  that  in  view  of  restrictions 
of  messages  to  plain  language,  which  entails  great  increase  in  cable  charges,  it  is  most  important 
that  such  increase  not  be  further  augmented  by  inabihty  to  avail  of  usual  condensation  per- 
mitted by  code  addresses.  Company  states  that  other  nations  do  not  seem  to  have  attached 
same  importance  to  address  feature  and  that  it  understands  messages  for  France  and  Itnly 
from  United  States  over  French  cables  are  being  passed  with  usual  code  addresses. 

You  will  bring  the  company's  representations  to  attention  of  Foreign  Office  and  endeavor 
secure  modification  desired. 

Bbtan. 


CENSOKSIIIP   OF   TELEGRAMS.  73 

Executive  Order. 

Whereas  an  Drder  lias  been  issued  by  me  dated  August  5,  1!)1 1,  declaring  that  all  radio 
stations  within  th(i  jurisdiction  of  the  ITnited  States  of  America  were  prohibited  from  trans- 
mitting or  receiving  for  delivery  messages  of  an  unneutral  nature  and  from  in  any  way  rendering 
to  any  one  of  the  belligerents  any  unneutral  service ;  and 

■V^liereas  it  is  desirable  to  take  precautions  to  insure  the  enforcement  of  said  oriler  insofar 
as  it  relates  to  the  transmission  of  code  and  cipher  messages  by  high-powered  stations  capable 
of  trans- Atlantic  communication; 

Now  therefore  it  is  ordered  by  virtue  of  authority  vested  in  mo  by  the  radio  act  of  August 
13,  1912,  that  one  or  more  of  tlie  high-powered  radio  stations  within  tlie  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  and  capable  of  trans-Atlantic  communication  shall  be  taken  over  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  and  used  or  controlled  by  it  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  control 
r  use  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  communication  with  land  stations  in  Europe,  inchuhng 
code  and  cipher  messages. 

The  enforcement  of  this  order  and  the  preparation  of  regulations  therefor  is  hereby  dele- 
gated to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  who  is  authorized  and  directed  to  take  such  action  in 
the  premises  as  to  him  may  appear  necessary. 

Tliis  order  shall  take  effect  from  and  after  tliis  date. 

WooDKow  Wilson. 

The  White  House,  5  September,  1914. 

[No.  2042.] 


o 


Hie  No.  841.731/24. 

Ambassador  TF.  II.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  450.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  September  16,  1914. 

Siu:  Referring  to  your  cablegram  of  September  .3,  by  which  I  was  instructed  to  present  to 
tlie  British  Foreign  Office  an  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  in 
reference  to  the  British  Censorship  Regulations  as  to  addresses  upon  cablegrams,  I  have  the 
honor  to  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  from  His  Majesty's  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  AfTaii-s,  in  reply  to  my  memorandum  of  September  3,  bringing  his  attention  to  the 
substance  of  the  above-mentioned  cablegram  from  the  Department. 

I  have,  etc., 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


[luclosure.] 

The  Secretanj  of  State/or  F-oreign  Affairs  lo  Ambassador  W.  II.  Page. 

Foreign  Office,  September  15,  1014- 
The  Scrrotary  of  Slalo  f(ir  Forei<;ii  Affairs  ]iros('nls  his  ronijiliinents  lo  llic  TJiiited  States  Ambassador,  and,  with 
n  iVronce  to  (lie  Embassy's  memorandum  of  the  Sd  instant  on  the  suliject  of  the  British  Censorship  Regulations,  lias 
ill!'  honour  to  inform  Ilis  Kxcellency  tlial  he  has  cau-sod  enquiries  to  be  made  in  respect  of  tlie  points  raised  by  the 
Western  Union  Telegrajili  Company. 

The  question  of  code  addresses  in  plain  language  telegrams  is  more  i-omplieated  than  at  lirst  .sight  Would  appear. 
Although  it  is  true  that  so  long  as  any  individual  or  linn  is  only  allowed  to  register  one  code  address,  the  possibility 
of  abuse  is  almost  eliminated,  yet  when,  as  in  the  United  States,  there  is  no  limit  to  the  number  of  code  words  that 
may  be  registered  for  the  same  address,  this  latitude  could  easily  be  adapted  to  the  surreptitious  convej-unco  of  infor- 
mation. 

The  matter  is,  however,  engaging  the  attention  of  the  competent  liritish  authorities  with  a  view  to  the  discovery 
of  .some  safe  means  of  giving  the  mercantile  community  the  relief  desired. 


File  Xo.  841.731/14. 

Ambassador  IF.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  September  19,  1914- 

Your  telegram  fourteenth.'     Foreign  Office  regrets  delay  of  telegrams  between  the  Wtvsh- 

burn-Crosby  Company  and  their  agent  at  Cliristiania.     Instructions  have  been  given  to  interfere 

as  little  as  possible  with  genuine  business  telegrams  between  neutral  coimtries  and  British 

Government.     Trusts  no  further  inconvenience  will  be  experienced  by  tlio  company  in  question. 

Page. 

'  Not  printed. 


74  CENSOKSHU'   OF   TELKGKAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/23. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  330.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  September  24,  1914. 

Sir  :  With  rofcrcnce  to  the  letter  from  the  Counselor  of  the  State  Department  to  Mr.  Barclay, 

dated  the  13th  ultinio,'  and  to  Mr.  Barclay'.s  reply,  (hited  August  15,  in  regard  to  complaint 

received  from  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  of  the  severity  of  the  censorship  imposed 

by  His  Majesty's  Government  on  cable  messages,  I  have  the  honour  to  report  that  Sir  Edward 

Grey,  in  reply  to  a  similar  (;()mmuni(;ation  from  the  United  States  Ambassador  in  London,  has 

sent  to  his  excellency  Mr.  Page  the  memorandum  of  which  a  copy  is  enclosed  herein.^ 

I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  841.731/22. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.  [ 

Department  of  State, 
J^'ashington,  September  26,  1914- 
The  department  has  received  a  great  many  protests  from  commercial  houses  and  boards 
of  trade  autl  transportation  throughout  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  suppression  by  British 
censors  of  cable  communications  to  and  from  neutral  countries.  This  considerably  interferes 
with  legitimate  foreign  commerce  between  the  United  States  and  neutral  comitries.  You  may 
present  the  matter  to  the  British  Foreign  Office  with  the  suggestion  that  the  department  deems 
it  very  desirable  to  discontinue  suppressing  harmless  commercial  cables.  Another  great  hardship 
has  been  that  when  suppressions  have  been  made  the  senders  of  cables  have  not  been  uiformed 
of  nondelivery.     This  should  also  be  remeilied.     The  department  is  awaiting  an  early  reply. 

Lansing. 


Fil.'  N...  S-11.731/32A. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Wasliington,  October  1,  1914. 
Asc  full  adch'ess  and  signature  still  necessary  on  department's  telegrams  to  London  and 
beyond  1 


Bryan. 


Filo  No.  841.731/32. 


Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 


American  Embassy, 

London,  October  2,  1914, 

Page. 


Your  229  fu-st.     No  change  in  censorship  regulations. 

File  No.  841.731/34. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  October  5,  1914. 
Your  cable  26  September.     Sir  Edward  Grey  informs  me  that  he  has  taken  up  with  the 
chief  censor  the  matter  of  the  censorship  of  t(>legrams  passing  between  the  LTnited  States  and 
neutral  countries  with  the  object  of  avoiding  undue  mterference  with  such  telegrams. 

Page. 

'  Not  printed;  same  matter  appears  as  inclosure  to  Mr.  Page's  dispatch  of  August  24, 1914.    See  p.  72. 


CENSOKSHU'   OK   TELEGRAMS.  75 

FiloNo.  «II.7:51/'M. 

Anbaamdor  W.  II.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telogram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  October  13,  1914. 
Your  telegram  Soptomhor  26.  Sir  Edward  Grey  informs  me  that  some  time  ago  instruc- 
tions were  given  to  discontinue  the  suppression  of  commercijil  tek'grams  lietween  the  United 
States  and  neutral  countries.  He  states,  however,  that  cases  occur  in  which  telegrams  dis- 
close what  appears  to  be  an  attempt  to  establish  trade  with  a  country  at  war  with  Great  Britain, 
but  that  even  in  these  cases  the  telegrams  are  passed  for  transmission  unless  it  appears  that 
delivery  would  entail  the  effecting  of  some  important  transaction  detrimental  to  British  interests. 
Ho  adds  with  regard  to  the  question  of  notifying  the  sender  of  nondelivery  of  stopped  telegrams 
that  it  seems  dear  that  to  do  so  m  tho  case  of  telegrams  aljove  referred  to  woukl  only  bo  to 
defeat  the  object  of  censorship,  and  Sir  Edward  Grey  hopes  that  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment wiU  agree  with  him  in  thinking  that  as  only  such  telegrams  are  being  suppressed  no 
hardship  is  being  inflicted  upon  legitimate  trade  between  the  United  States  and  neutral 
countries. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/44. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Waslimgion,  October  14,  1914- 
YDur  826.  Depai-tment  is  confident  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  will  appreciate  the  hardsMp 
infhcted  upon  American  interests  in  failing  to  notify  the  sender  of  the  nondelivery  of  stopped 
telegrams  sent  in  good  faith;  that  is,  the  sender  may  proceed  with  his  part  of  the  contract  on 
the  suoposition  that  his  message  has  been  delivered  and  thereby  incur  considerable  ex])ense. 
It  w\;.i'',l  appear  to  the  depiU'tmeut  that  notification  of  nondelivery  would  be  more  courteous 
and  just.  Please  take  up  this  matter  personally  with  vSir  Edward  Grey  and  endeavor  to  obtain 
the  desii-ed  relief. 

Lansing. 


File  Nc,  841.731/61. 

Ambassador  IV.  //.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  524.J  American  Embassy, 

London,  October  23, 1914- 
Sm:  I  have  the  honour  to  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  I  have  just  received  from 
the  Foreign  Office  upon  which  my  telegram  of  to-day's  date  was  based,  relating  to  the  deten- 
tion at  Hongkong   of   telegrams  from  the  colonel  commanding   the  United  States  forces  at 
Ti.Mitsin  to  tho  commanding  general  at  tho  Pliilippines. 
I  have,  etc. 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


[LiK'losure.] 
The  British  Secretary  of  Stale/or  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  W.  S.  Page. 

No.  61306.]  Foreign  Office,  October  21,  1914. 

YouK  E.xcellency:  In  reply  to  Your  Excellency's  note  of  the  7th  instant  I  have  the  honour  to  state  that  His 
Majesty's  Governmont  rcjirot  that  telegrams  from  the  colonel  commanding  the  United  Statojs  forces  at  Tientsin  to  the 
commanding  general  in  the  Philippines  sliould  have  been  detained  at  Hong  Kong. 

From  enquiries  made  it  appeal's  that  two  code  telegrams  dated  August  21  and  August  22  last,  signed  respectively 
Tillson  and  Rowell  and  addressed  to  a  code  address  in  the  Philippines,  were  so  detained. 

Their  detention  was  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  it  w;i3  not  contemplated  before  the  outbreak  of  war  that  such 
messages  -would  jjass  tlirough  the  hands  of  tho  British  censors,  especially  as  tliere  is  a  direct  American  cable  from 
Shanghai  to  the  Philippines.  The  messages  in  question  were  probably  sent  via  Hong  Kong  during  a  temporar>'  inter- 
ruption of  the  direct  route,  of  which  the  Hong  Konf  censor  may  have  been  unaware,  and  there  was  nothing  in  the  sig- 
nature nor  address  of  these  two  messages  to  indicate  that  they  were  of  an  official  nature. 

His  Majesty's  Government  will,  of  course,  do  all  they  can  to  facilitate  the  transmission  of  such  messages;  but  in 

order  to  avoid  delays  they  would  he.  obliged  if  the  signatures  and  addresses  could  be  given  in  full,  so  as  to  indicate 

the  ollicial  character  of  the  sender  ;uid  addressee. 

I  have,  etc.,  „    „ 

E.  Gbet. 


76  CENSORSHIP    Of    TEI.K(iRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/56. 

Aiiihassuilor   II .  //.  I'ai/c  io  Ihe  Secretary  of  State. 

['rolcgriiiii.J 

American  Embassy, 

London,  Octoher  30,  WH. 
Sir  Edward  Grey  has  mado  further  inquiries  regarding  censoring  of  commercial  cables  and 
informs  mo  that  as  a  general  rule  the  senders  are  not  informed  of  the  stoppage  of  such  messages 
and  that  exactly  same  rules  are  applitnl  in  Ihis  respect  to  British  and  American  senders. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/58. 

Minister  StovaU  to  the  SecreMnj  of  State. 

[Tulegraiu — Paraphrase] 

American  Legation, 

Berne,  November  5,  1914- 
Mr.  Stovall  says  that  the  (hrector  of  the  Swiss  People's  Bank  states  that  telegrams  which 
he  sent  re(  .>nth'  to  New  York  relative  to  money  transfers  have  not  reached  their  destination, 
and  that  telegrams  from  Swiss  banks  to  the  United  States  regarduig  grain  for  the  Swiss  Govern- 
ment have  been  stopped  somewhere  and  have  never  reached  their  destination.  Mr.  Stovall 
saj-s  it  is  believed  that  the  messages  are  being  censored  in  France  and  England,  and  that  the 
Swiss  bankers  protest  against  this  action,  claiming  that  it  interferes  materially  with  business 
between  the  United  States  and  Switzerland. 


FUe  No.  841.731/58. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Stovall. 

[Telegram.] 

Dep.\rtmext  of  State, 
Washm0on,  Noveniher  6,  1914. 
The  Department  regrets  that  it  can  do  nothing  in  this  case,  as  commercial  cables  are 
censored  by  belligerents  and  not  by  American  authorities.     Tliis  seems  to  be  a  matter  that 
should  be  taken  up  by  the  Swiss  ministers  in  London  and  Paris  and  not  by  this  Government. 

L.VNSIXG. 


File  No.  8-41.731/154. 

Ainhas^ador  T.  N.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram — Parapharse.] 

Asierican  Embassy, 

Rome,  November  9,  1914. 
Ml".  Page  reports  that  the  representative  of  the  American  Trade  Agency  at  Rome,  Mr.  Henry 
S.  Cavanaugh,  au  American  citizen,  says  he  is  unable  to  effect  calile  communication  with  Ameri- 
can firnos,  that  messages  relating  to  important  commercial  transactions  and  having  no  con- 
nection with  contraband  articles  are  not  dehvered,  and  asks  an  investigation. 


File  No.  841.731/154. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  T.  N.  Page. 

[Telegram.! 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  10,  1914- 
The  Americaji  Ambassador,  London,  has  taken  up  the  question  of  censorship  of  cables 
with  the  Foreign  Ofhcc.  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  promised  to  facilitate  in  every  manner  possible 
the  transmission  of  commercial  messages  sent  in  plain  language,  and  hiis  also  agreed  that  code 
addresses  may  be  used  where  they  have  been  registered.  Since  this  arrangement  has  gone  into 
effect  Department  lias  received  ]>racticiilly  no  complaint.     There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why 


aa  investigation  should  be  made. 


Bbtan. 


CENSORSHIP  OP  TF.l.KORAMS.  77 

Filn  Nn.  ,H.tl.7;!l/84, 

Minister  Stovall  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

American  IjEOation, 
Berne,  Novemher  10,  101 4. 

Siu:  III  rcfcnMico  to  my  t(^lo<^rnm  of  tlui  (ith  iiistant  and  your  numhor  fjO  of  the  7(h  iiistiuit 
about  tho  iiiti'iTuptitui  of  cominoiciiil  <'iil)l((  nl(^sslllJ(•s  l)ct\v<^cu  Swilzcrlaiul  and  Iho  riiilod 
States,  I  dosiro  to  appdiid  lioivwitli  Iho  note  of  tho  Swiss  Govonimont  rocoivod  this  day,  and 
idso  the  copy  of  a  letter  from  tho  Goneral  Postoflico,  London,  to  the  Director  General  of  Swiss 
Telegraphs  in  Berne. 

The  Swiss  Government  reports  a  growing  discontent  with  tho  maimer  in  which  these 
messages  are  being  censored,  especially  to  the  United  States,  even  when  their  composition 
al)sohit(ily  com]>lies  with  tho  rules  in  force.  The  T«^l(\graph  administration  has  refen-ed  these 
comphiiiits  to  tho  P()liti<-!d  Dc])iirtment,  and  this  latter  has  asl^ed  me  to  bring  them  before  the 
Secretary  of  State  in  Washington.  I  have  informed  them  of  my  action  and  shown  them  your 
reply. 

I  do  not  know  that  anytliing  else  can  1)0  done,  but  I  may  state  that  the  banks  and  the 
shippei-s  l)ring  tho  matter  continually  before  the  authorities  here. 

I  have,  etc. 

Pleasant  A.  Stovall. 


[Inchisure  1.] 

The  Feihral  PoUtical  Department,  to  Minister  S/ovalt. 

Political  Department  of  the  Swiss  Confederation, 

Berne,  Novemher  9,  1914. 

Referring  to  its  verbal  communication  of  to-day,  the  Federal  Political  Department  has  the  honor  to  confirm  to 
His  Excellency  tlio  American  jrinister  the  fact  that  the  Swiss  merchant.'!  strongly  complain  against  the  British  censor- 
ship for  ha^'ing  retained  and  censured  numerous  telegrams  from  Switzerland  to  the  United  States  and  \'iee  versa,  although 
the  contents  of  the  telegrams  in  (juestion  would  in  no  way  seem  to  justify  such  measure. 

As  the  steps  taken  directly  l)y  the  Swiss  Telegi'aph  Administration  with  the  British  Telegraph  Administration 
did  not  meet  the  expected  success  (see  the  two  enclosures),  and  as,  on  the  other  hand,  the  United  States  would  seem  to 
have  tho  greatest  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  their  economical  relations  -with  the  neutral  countries  of  Europe,  the 
Political  Department  would  propose  to  the  Jfinister  of  the  United  States  to  inter\'ene  with  his  Government  to  the  effect 
that  the  latter  take  steps  in  I.ondon  to  obtain  from  the  British  Government  in  the  matter  of  telegraphic  communications 
an  exercise  of  the  censure  less  prejudicial  to  the  reciprocal  commercial  interests  concerned. 

The  Swiss  Minister  in  Washington  will  be  requested,  to  propose,  on  his  part,  to  the  Cabinet  in  Washington  that 
joint representiitinn.s  l)e  made  to  tlu;  Brit  ish  ( iovernment  by  the  Representatives  of  the  United  States  and  Switzerland 
in  London. 


[Inclosiire  2.] 

General  Post  Office, 
London,  November  2,  1914. 
Sir:  With  reference  to  your  letter  of  the  15th  October,  No.  195.2118,  respecting  the  censorsliip  exerci.ied  by  the 
liritisli  Go^•ernment  on  foreign  telegrams,  I  am  directed  by  the  Postmaster  General  to  point  out  that  article  8  of  the 
Internalional  Telegraph  Convention  reserves  to  each  of  the  contracting  States  the  right  of  suspending  the  international 
telegraph  service  for  an  indefinite  period.  Such  a  notice  was  issued  by  the  British  Government  when  the  present 
emergency  arose,  but  in  order  to  avoid  the  inconvenience  which  would  have  arisen  from  a  total  stoppage  of  commu- 
nication it  was  decided  as  an  art  of  (iracc.  to  accept  telegrams  for  transmission  on  the  understanding  ,.iat  they  were 
to  be  accepted  at  the  sender's  risk  and  subject  to  censorship  Ijy  the  British  authorities;  that  is,  that  they  might  be 
slopped,  delayed,  or  otherwise  dealt  witli  by  the  censors,  and  that  no  claim  for  reimbur.sement  could  be  entertained. 
The.se  conditions  were  duly  notified  through  the  International  Telegraph  Bureau  on  the  3d  .\ugust. 

,\11  telegrams  .sent  or  received  from  phu-es  abroad  are  being  dealt  with  accordingly.  Tlie  Po,«tma.ster  General, 
wliile  nuicli  regretting  the  inconvenience  occasioned,  fears  tliat  it  will  not  at  present  be  practicable  to  modify  the 
regulations. 

I  have,  etc., 

(Signed) . 


File  No.  811.731/C3. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W,  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

DEP.UtTMENT    OF   StATE, 

Washington,  Novemher  12,  191 4. 
From  Copenhagen,  11th.     Danish  firms  conductmg  business  with  American  houses  protest 
against  English  censorsliip  of  o])en  commercial  cables,  which  is  ruining  business  between  Amer- 
ica and  Denmark.     Please  present  this  matter  to  Foreign  Office  with  a  view  to  ameliorating 

the  hardships  described. 

Beyan. 


78  CENSORSHIP  OF  TEI.ECRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/264. 

The  Sw-iss  Minister  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Legation  op  Switzerland, 
Washington,  Noventher  12,  1914. 
Tlio  following  ca])lo  fiom  Borne,  received  by  the  Swiss  Legation,  Thursday,  November  12, 
1914,  loft  at  tiie  Dcpartincut  of  State,  Novemlicr  18,  1914: 

Since  beginning  nf  war  and  especially  lately  our  business  world  ia  being  heavily  damaged  on  account  of  English 
and  French  censure  simply  suppressing  himdreds  of  telegrams  from  Smtzerlaud  to  North  America  and  vice  versa, 
although  being  i)urely  commercial  communications.  Refunding  of  telegram  costs  does  not  take  place.  Attitude  of 
censure  apparently  explains  itself  through  general  although  unfounded  presumption  that  Swiss  firms  transmit  tele- 
grams of  German  houses.  As  damage  affects  America  as  well  as  Switzerland,  you  will  propose  American  government 
common  steps  in  London  and  Bordeau.x.  Upon  our  desire  Minister  Stovall  also  cables  his  government.  The  latter 
perhaps  has  received  ci>inplaints  concerning  telegram  ser\ice  between  America  and  other  neutral  countries.  As  soon 
as  your  answer  arrives  our  ministers  in  Paris  and  Loudon  will  receive  instructions. 

Hoffman, 
President  Confederation. 


FileNn.  841.731/264. 

Memorandum  to  the  Swiss  Legation. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  Novemher  20,  1914- 
Referring  to  the  copy  of  cable  message  from  the  Govermncnt  of  Switzerland,  dated  Novem- 
ber 12,  submitted  to  the  Department  of  State  by  the  Swiss  Legation,  the  Department  begs  to 
inform  the  Legation  that  it  has  instructed  the  American  ambassadors  at  London  and  Paris  to 
cooperate  in  every  way  possible  with  the  Swiss  ministers  at  those  capitals  in  the  matter  of  the 
censorship  of  cormnercial  cable  messages  exchanged  between  the  United  States  and  Switz- 
erland. 


File  No.  841.731/64. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  W.  H.  Page} 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Novemher  20,  1914. 
Mr.  Lansing  refers  to  Embassy's  826,  received  October  13,  stating  that  the  Embassy  was 
advised  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  that  instructions  had  been  given  to  discontinue  the  suppression  of 
commercial  cables  between  neutral  countries  and  the  L^nited  States,  and  stating  that  even  when 
cases  occurred  in  which  telegrams  disclosed  what  seemed  an  attempt  to  establish  trade  with  a 
country  which  was  at  war  with  Great  Britain  the  telegrams  would  be  passed  for  transmission 
unless  it  appeared  that  their  delivery  would  promote  an  important  transaction  which  would  be 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  British  Government.  Mr.  Lansing  calls  the  attention  of 
Mr.  Page  to  the  fact  that  there  is  an  increase  each  day  in  the  number  of  protests  received  from 
reliable  business  firms  in  the  United  States  against  the  way  in  which  the  British  Government  is 
exercising  its  censorship  at  the  present  time  over  purely  commercial  cables.  He  says  in  addition 
to  these  protests  the  Department  is  receiving  protests  from  Danish  firms  transacting  business 
with  American  commercial  houses,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  Department's  523,  and  states 
that  this  Government  has  been  approached  also  by  the  S^\dss  Government  with  a  view  to  the 
presentation  of  a  joint  protest  to  Great  Britain  on  account  of  the  unreasonable  rules  relating 
to  the  censorship  of  cormnercial  cable  messages  between  Switzerland  and  the  United  States. 
Mr.  Lansing  states  that  the  Department  has  been  advised  that  the  Swiss  minister  at  London 
has  been  instructed  also  to  protest  against  the  rigors  of  the  censorship  as  enforced  at  the  present 
time.  He  says  the  Swiss  minister  will  probably  confer  with  the  Embassy  on  the  subject,  and 
directs  Ml".  Page  to  cooperate  with  him  in  every  wa}^  possible,  but  says  the  Department  prefers  to 
have  a  separate  protest  presented  with  a  view  to  reaching  some  arrangement  by  which  the  present 
regulations  regarding  censoi-ship  may  be  amended  so  as  to  lessen  the  inconveniences,  hardships, 
and  loss  of  moni\y  which  is  entailed  upon  tlie  commercial  houses  of  the  United  States  at  this  time. 
Ml".  Lansing  adds  that  the  Department  is  sending  a  similar  instruction  to  the  Embassy  at  Paris, 
and  instructs  Mr.  Pago  to  keep  the  Department  fidly  informed  as  to  the  action  of  the  British 
Government. 

'  Similar  instructions  sent  to  the  Embassy  at  Paris. 


CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS.  79 

File  No.  841.731)64. 

Tlie  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  StovaU, 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  20,  1914. 
Mr.  Lansing  informs  Mr.  StoviiU  that,  the.  American  ambassailors  at  Lonrlon  and  Paris 
have  been  instructiul  to  conft'r  witli  the  Swiss  ministers  at  those  capitals  regarding  the  matter 
of  the  censorship  of  cablegrams  between  Switzerland  and  the  United  States  with  view  to 
making  joint  representation.  Says  Department  will  inform  the  Swiss  minister  in  Washington 
as  soon  as  report  is  received. 


File  No.  851.731/1. 

Ambassador  IlerricJc  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Extract.] 

American  Embassy, 
Paris,  November  22,  1914. 
French  Government  yesterday  authorized  telegrams  from  France,  Algeria, and  Tunis  sent 
over  French  cable  lines  to  West  Africa,  United  States,  etc.,  to  be  in  following  codes:  ABC,  5th 
edition ;  Scotts,  1 0th  edition ;  Western  Union,  Liebers,  and  code  A  Z.  The  use  of  supplementary 
codes  on  words  is  not  allowed.  Name  of  code  to  be  WTitten  on  the  telegram  sent,  must  be 
accompanied  by  translation  into  French  or  English.  This  translation  will  be  charged  5  centimes 
per  word  except  at  Paris,  Marseilles,  and  Brest,  where  the  control  will  be  exercised.  Wliile 
telegraph  administration  will  assume  no  responsibility  for  delay,  it  will  endeavor  to  expedite 
despatch  of  messages  (*     *     *  ')  with  necessary  examination. 

Herrick. 


File  No.  841.731/82. 

Ambassador  W.  E.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase— Extract.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  November  25,  1914- 
Mr.  Page  acknowledges  Department's  November  20  and  says  he  has  made  protest  to 
Foreign  Office  regarding  suppression  of  commercial  telegrams  exchanged  between  the  United 
States  and  Switzerland  and  the  United  States  and  Denmark.  That  Foreign  Office  regretted 
that  particular  telegrams  of  which  complaint  was  made  could  not  be  furnished,  stating  that 
each  telegram  would  indicate  the  reason  for  its  suppression.  Mr.  Page  says  ho  reminded  the 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  previous  complaints  and  of  the  lack  of  satisfaction  and  of  the 
many  commercial  comjilaints  and  losses,  and  that  minister  asserted  that  protest  would  ])e 
placed  in  hands  of  Prime  Minister  and  his  report  sent  to  Embassy  when  received.  Mi-.  Page 
says  that,  unless  there  is  some  arrangement  concerning  which  he  has  not  been  informed,  he 
understands  the  British  Government  has  the  right  as  a  war  measure  to  suppress  messages  over 
British  hues,  but  he  saj-s  there  has  been  so  much  criticism  from  so  many  quarters  that  he  hopes 
for  a  relaxation  of  the  censorship  restrictions. 


File  No.  841.731/1.55. 

Ambassador  T.  N.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

American  Embassy, 

Rome,  November  27,  1914- 
Mr.  Page  reports  that  complaints  continue  relative  to  undehvered  telegrams  to  American 
commerci:d  companies,  incluchng  important  messages  to  the  Curtis  Aeroplane  Company.     Mr. 
Page  states  that  the  interference  is  apparently  from  the  outside  and  says  business  is  much 
disturbed. 

1  Apparent  omi&slau. 


80  CENSORSTTTP  OF   TRI.EflRAMS. 

Kilo  No.  84J  731/8H. 

Ambassador  Wilhrd  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .] 


American  Embassy, 

Madrid,  November  27,  1.01/,. 
Mr.  Williud  says  (lio  Consul  Goiu'.ml  ut  Baricluiiti  ii'i)orts  that  cot  ton  import  ations  from  the 
United  States  to  Spain  are  seriously  interfered  with  on  account  of  the  British  censorship  of 
intelligently  worded  cable  messages  in  clear  Enghsh  refemng  to  transactions  in  cotton  pur- 
chases, and  states  that  the  Consul  General  asks  on  behalf  of  Spanish  importers  rehef  from 
censorship  interference  ■w'ith  such  messages. 


File  No.  841/731/155. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  T.  N.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Decemhfr  1,  1914. 

Mr.  Bryan  informs  Mr.  Page  that  the  Department  on  November  20  instructed  Mr.  Page 
at  London  again  to  take  up  with  the  Foreign  Office  the  question  of  cable  censorship,  and  says 
on  November  25  Mr.  Pago  reported  that  uidess  there  was  some  other  understanding  of  which 
the  Embassy  was  not  informed  the  British  Government  had  the  right  as  a  war  measure  to 
suppress  messages  transmitted  over  their  ca])lo  lines.  Mr.  Page  said  he  hoped,  however,  for  a 
relaxation  of  tlie  rides  on  account  of  the  insistent  criticism  which  was  coming  from  many 
quarters. 

Mr.  Bryan  says  the  Department  is  also  in  receipt  of  a  telegram  from  theAmerican  Embassy 
at  Paris,  dated  November  22,  statmg  that  by  authority  of  the  French  Government  telegrams 
from  France,  Algeria,  and  Tunis  sent  over  French  lines  to  West  Africa,  the  United  States, 
etc.,  may  be  in  the  following  codes:  A.  B.  C,  .5th  edition;  Scott's,  10th  edition;  Western  Union, 
Lieber's,  and  the  A.  Z.  Code;  that  the  use  of  supplementary  codes  on  words  Avill  not  be  allowed; 
that  the  name  of  the  code  which  is  written  on  the  telegram  sent  must  be  accompanied  by  a 
French  or  an  Enghsh  translation ;  that  5  centimes  per  word  wnll  be  charged  for  the  translation 
except  at  Paris,  Mareeilles,  and  Brest,  where  control  is  exercised,  and  that  whUe  the  Telegraph 
Administration  will  not  assume  responsibility  for  delays,  an  effort  wiU  be  made  to  expedite  the 
des]iatrli  of  messages. 


File  No.  841.731/1.57. 

Ambassador  T.  N.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

American  Embassy, 

Rome,  Dccemhcr  2,  1914. 
Mr.  Page  says  the  British  Ambassador  at  Rome  confirms  the  rci)ort  of  the  American  Embnssy 
at  London  that  the  British  Government  is  investigathig  tlie  detention  of  commercial  telegrams, 
and  states  tliat  the  British  Government  has  no  desu-e  to  delay  such  messages.  Mr.  Page  states, 
in  reply  to  his  inquiry  as  to  whether  detention  occurs  in  Italy,  the  Italian  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs  informs  liim  that  complaints  have  been  received  from  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  at 
Naples,  from  the  Bank  of  Naples,  and  from  private  fh-ms  whose  telegrams  of  a  purely  commercial 
character  have  been  stopped  by  French  and  British  censors,  and  that  the  matter  has  been  taken 
up  with  tlie  British  and  French  Governments.  Mr.  Page  adds  that  the  Italian  Minister  for 
Foreign  Affairs  requests  as  a  matter  of  common  interest  that  the  United  States  cooperate  to  have 
the  practice  stopped. 


File  No.  841.731/83. 

27k;  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  II.  Page. 
[Telegi-am — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  2,  1914- 
Mr.  Bryan  informs  Mr.  Pago  that  the  Department  is  advised  by  the  Embassy  at  Madrid 
that  the  Consul  General  at  Barcelona  states  that  cotton  importations  from  the  United  States 
to  Spain  are  seriously  interfered  with  on  account  of  British  censorship  of  cablegrams  in  clear 


CENSORSHIP    OF   TELEGBAMS.  81 

Eiifjlish  and  intollisontly  worded  and  rcforrino;  to  cotton  transactions.  Mr.  Bryan  says  relief 
from  this  censorship  interference  is  requost(>d,  and  instructs  Mr.  Page  to  take  the  matter  up 
with  the  British  Foreign  Office. 


Filo  No.  841.731/92. 

Ambassador  IV.  //.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  December  2,  191J,.. 
Your  r)82  and  my  11.38. 

I  have  just  received  the  following  statement  from  Sir  Edward  Grey: 

In  connection  with  complaints  about  liolh  press  and  commercial  cables,  I  can  make  no  progress  without  specific 
instances  of  didicultios.  The  consorsliip  ask  tliat  tlie  names  of  tlio  addressees  and  st'iiders  of  stopped  telegrams  should 
be  given  in  order  that  inquiry  may  lie  made.  The  chief  censor  is  willing  to  make  most  searching  inquin,',  and  if  it  ia 
found  that  any  message  has  been  stoj^ped  without  suflicienl  prima  facie  grounds,  all  the  necessary  steps  will  be  taken 
to  jircvent  (he  occurrence  of  similar  cases  iu  future.  The  chief  cen.sor  would  indeed  welcome  specific  instances,  as  they 
would  possil)ly  lie  accompanied  by  evidence  of  the  innocence  of  mes-sages  that  have  appearance  of  being  suspicious 
and  this  might  give  a  clue  to  the  nature  of  a  whole  class  of  messages.  The  chief  censor  is  confident  that  American 
and  Swiss  telegrams  are  not  being  stopped  wantonly,  but  only  when  there  appears  on  the  face  of  them  good  reasons  for 
supposing  that  they  may  be  improper  messages.  About  50,000  commercial  telegrams  between  neutral  countries  pass 
through  the  hands  of  the  censorship  every  day,  and  I  imagine  tliat  comparatively  few  are  delayed. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/92. 

The  Secretary  of  State  <j  Ambassadcr  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

WasJiington,  December  3,  1914- 

Your  1138,  November  25  and  1183,  December  2. 

The  ((uestion  of  complaints  concerning  press  and  commercial  cables  seems  one  that  can 
be  relieved  only  by  amendment  of  censorship  regulations.  It  appears  to  Department  that  the 
demand  for  specific  instances  and  names  of  addressees  and  senders  of  stopped  telegrams  would 
be  useless  in  settling  the  general  question  of  censorship.  As  is  probably  well  known  by  the 
British  censors,  it  would  be  almost  impossible  for  Dejiartment  to  obtain  and  considerable 
number  of  instances  where  names  and  dates  could  be  given.  It  appears  from  British  statement 
that  more  than  50,000  commercial  cables  pass  through  censorship  daily  and  therefore  where 
isolated  cases  arise  it  must  be  because  of  the  arbitrary  methods  adopted. 

To  be  as  specific  as  possible,  however,  Department  is  forwarding  a  protest  received  to-day 
from  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company,  which  is  in  part  as  follows: 

It  states  tliat,  ])eginning  November  20,  French  Telegraph  Cable  Company  will  accept 
messages  for  France,  Algiers  and  Tunis,  in  code,  provided  the  ABC,  5th  edition;  Scott's, 
10th  edition:  Liebers;  Western  Union,  or  A  Z  codes  are  used.  About  the  same  date  it  was 
letirned  through  comj^any's  representative  at  Havana  that  the  French  company  had  agreed  to 
transmit  plain  Spanish  messages  for  Spain.  Both  matters  were  immediately  referred  to  com- 
pany's London  officials  and  were  presented  to  British  mihtary  censors  with  view  to  obtaining 
the  same  privileges,  and  company  is  now  advised  that  censors  have  declined  its  request.  This 
action  appears  to  company  to  discriminate  against  American  cablers  who  desire  to  use  American 
cables  instead  of  those  of  the  French  company,  which  is  a  foreign  concern.  In  view  of  this 
protest,  please  make  further  representations  to  Foreign  Office  to  the  end  of  having  censorship 
restrictions  removed  as  far  as  possible.  This  matter  becomes  more  urgent  daily  and  the  Depart- 
ment feels  that  something  should  bo  done  immediately  to  relieve  situation. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  841.731/157. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  T.  N.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraplirase .  ] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  4,  1914- 
Mr.  Bryan  directs  Mr.  Page  to  cooperate  with  his  Italian  colleagues  in  the  matter  of  censor- 
ship of  commercial  cables. 
4550°— 15 6 


82  CENSORSHIP  OF   TELEGRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/102. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.! 

American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  December  4,  1914- 
Mr.  Gerard  says  tho  German  Foreign  Office  in  referring  to  the  necessity  for  uninterrupted 
telegraphic  coiumunicjitlon  between  Germany  and  tho  I'nited  States  relative  to  cotton  mattei-s 
states  that  it  seems  from  reliable  sources  that  cablegrams  sent  over  commercial  lines  and 
Western  Union  to  Menipliis  and  Now  Orleans,  even  from  neutral  countries  referring  to  cotton 
transactions  and  giving  or  confirming  orders  or  repetition  of  unanswered  messages  have  not  been 
acknowledged.  Mr.  Gerard  says  the  German  Government  assumes  therefore  that  the  interested 
parties  in  Great  Britain  have  censored  these  messages  so  as  to  render  indefinite  her  agreement 
that  cotton  might  go  to  European  countries  as  noncontraband.  Mr.  Gerard  adds  that  the 
German  Government  asks  the  United  States  Government  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  secure 
the  uninterrupted  transmission  of  cotton  messages. 


File  No.  851.731/3. 

TJie  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Sharp. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

^Vas^linl/ton,  December  7,  1.914- 
Mr.  Bryan  instructs  Mr.  Sharp  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Foreign  Office  the  following 
in  substance  from  Ambassador  Nelson  Page  at  Rome: 

Complaints  are  being  received  of  commercial  and  official  telegrams  being  delayed  or  inter- 
cepted by  the  French  and  that  among  them  are  several  from  C'onsid  General  at  Genoa,  and  also 
one  to  commander  of  Jason  about  coaling,  and  says  Italians  are  making  similar  complaints. 

Betan. 


1 


File  No.  841.731/101. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  December  7,  1914. 
Your  684,  December  2,  678,  December  3,  and  679,  December  3,  presented  and  in  the  dis- 
cussion Sir  Edward  Grey  promised  to  arrange  an  early  conference  between  him  and  chief  censor 
and  me.  He  informed  me  that  certain  telegrams  were  stopped  because  an  unnatural  number 
and  arrangement  of  Cliristian  names  in  them  suggested  that  they  concealed  a  cipher.  I  shall 
immediately  take  up  yom*  telegram  just  come  citing  welcome  specific  cablegrams. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/109. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  E.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  11,  1914- 

Mr.  Bryan  states  that  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange  has  received  several  complaints 
against  the  action  of  the  British  and  French  censors  in  holding  up  cablegrams  to  and  from  the 
United  States  with  regard  to  purchase  and  sale  of  cotton.  He  further  states  that  no  cable 
codes  are  allowed  to  neutral  countries  and  cables  are  charged  full  rates  by  cable  companies, 
delivered  or  not  deUvered.  Complaints  deal  cliiefly  with  cablegrams  between  Italy  and  Spain 
and  the  United  States.  Mr.  Bryan  also  states  that  great  trouble  and  confusion  arise  when 
one  of  a  series  of  cables  is  missing  and  tliat  it  means  an  endless  expense  in  sending  various  cables 
endeavoring  to  get  one  of  them  to  destination,  explaining  all  that  has  been  done  in  the  past. 

Ml-.  Bryan  says  the  Exchange  recommends  most  eai'nestly  that  there  be  granted  permission 
for  the  use  of  Meyer's  or  Shepperson's  Cotton  Codes,  see  Liverpool  Cotton  Gazette  of  November 
21.  The  Exchange  further  stalos  that  the  action  of  the  British  and  French  censoi-s  is  having  a 
very  disastrous  influence  on  tho  financial  conditions  in  the  cotton  States  of  the  South. 


CENSORSHIP   OF   TELEGRAMS.  83 

File  No.  841.731/109. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  W.  IT.  Page. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  11,  1.914. 

Silt:  llcf(Mring  to  the  Department's  telegram  of  to-day's  date  with  reference  to  the  numer- 
ous comiiLiinls  received  by  (h(>  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange  against  the  action  of  tlie  British 
censors  in  iiolding  up  cablegrams  to  and  from  the  liniled  »Stat(^s  regarding  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  cotton,  I  transmit  herewith  copy  of  a  lelt(^r  received  from  Mr.  E.  J.  Glenny,  president 
of  that  e.xclumgc,  enclosing  copies  of  a  number  of  ledcu-s  reccnved  by  him  on  this  subject. 

As  slateil  in  llie  Department's  telegram  of  to-ihiy,  the  New  Orleans  Cotton  Exchange 
earnestly  recommend  that  permission  be  granted  ])y  the  censors  for  the  use  of  Meyer's  or  Shep- 
person's  Cotton  Codes  which,  they  state,  are  nnicli  more  suitable  for  carrying  on  cable  corre- 
spond(^nce  with  regard  to  cotton  than  are  the  codes  now  jjcrmitted. 

The  Department  trusts  that  the  representations  being  made  by  you  to  the  British  Foreign 
Office  on  the  subject  of  censorship  of  commercial  cable  messages  will  result  in  the  granting  of 
some  relief  to  the  commercial  interests  of  tliis  country. 

I  am,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  811.731/130. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  December  11,  1914- 
Mr.  Page  reports  a  conference  between  himself,  the  British  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  the 
liead  censor  of  commercial  despatches  and  the  head  censor  of  press  despatches,  and  says  they 
make  a  strong  protest  against  the  charge  that  they  aim  to  impede  neutral  commerce.  Mr.  Page 
says  he  asked  them  if  they  did  impede  it  what  difference  it  made  what  their  aim  was.  He  says 
they  disclaimed  all  knowledge  of  matter  referred  to  in  Department's  664,  December  2,  and 
thought  it  must  be  the  work  of  Spanish  censor,  adding  that  all  telegrams  to  and  from  Europe 
did  not  come  through  London.  Regarding  Department's  678,  December  3,  they  claim  that 
arrangements  are  being  made  to  go  into  effect  January  1  to  allow  the  use  of  the  same  codes  as 
are  permitted  by  the  French  Cable  Company.  Tliey  say  the  information  received  by  the  West- 
ern Union  that  the  French  Company  transmits  plain  Spanish  messages  for  Spain  is  incorrect,  and 
deu}'  the  alleged  discrimuiation.  Mr.  Page  says  he  referred  to  the  Department's  679  of  Decem- 
l)er  3  and  insisted  that  a  commercial  cable  body  like  the  Galveston  Cotton  Exchange  wmdd  ccr- 
tauily  not  send  improper  concealed  telegrams,  and  he  adds  that  while  the  censors  granted  this, 
tliey  assert  that  they  had  no  recollection  of  having  stopped  telegrams  from  such  a  body;  that 
they  could  not  find  the  cables  referred  to  in  the  Department's  688  of  December  5  without 
encUess  labor  unless  they  knew  the  route  of  the  telegram  as  their  fdes  are  kept  by  routes,  and  that 
they  would  gladlj-  take  up  any  specific  complaint  giving  the  date,  place,  name  of  sender  and 
receiver,  and  the  telegraphic  route.  Mr.  Page  states  he  insisted  that  he  should  receive  a 
daily  list  of  idl  stopped  messages  with  the  names  of  senders,  dates,  places,  and  addresses.  He 
says  they  promised  to  comply  if  their  instructions  permitted,  but  in  response  to  his  request 
that  all  stopped  American  telegrams  be  sent  to  him,  they  said  that  that  would  be  illegal. 
They  confess  tliat  there  was  ground  for  press  complaints,  which  they  claim  is  now  removed,  and 
they  state  that  certam  German  banks  and  institutions  in  America  have  devised  very  ingenious 
codes  which  they  use  in  most  innocent  looking  telegrams.  Mr.  Page  adds  that  future  com- 
l)lainants  shoidd  be  asked  to  give  data  requested  by  the  censors. 


File  No.  841.731/134. 

Ambassador  T.  N.  Page  to  tJie  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

American  Embassy, 

Home,  December  14,  1914- 
Mr.  Page  asks  if  assurance  can  not  be  obtained  from  France  and  England  that  cable  mes- 
sages of  a  purely  commercial  character  will  not  be  held  up.     He  says  the  Italian  Government 
asks  the  cooperation  of  the  I'nitcd  States  in  the  matter,  that  complaints  are  made  from  a  good 
source,  and  that  American  trade  is  suffering  greatly. 


84  CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/157a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  U.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 
Wasliingfon,  December  15,  1914- 
Mr.  Bryan  informs  Mr.  Pago  that  the  Department  is  still  receiving  numerous  protests 
against  the  action  of  censors  in  holding  up  business  cables,  as  well  as  additional  complaints  re- 
garding detained  ships.  Ho  says  with  a  view  to  hastening  action  the  attention  of  the  British 
Ambassador  at  Washington  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  business  men  who  are  interested 
in  shipping  and  cables  are  presenting  their  protests  to  Senators  and  Members  of  Congress. 
States  that  it  is  learned  from  other  neutral  Governments  that  the  burdens  borne  by  the  nations 
not  at  war  are  being  felt  more  and  more,  and  instructs  Mr.  Page  to  brmg  the  matter  urgently 
to  the  attention  of  the  Foreign  Office  with  a  view  to  reducing  to  a  minimum  interference  with 
commimication  and  shipping,  setting  forth  that  the  sender  should  lie  notified  by  the  company 
at  onc(^  if  transmission  is  refused,  giving  reasons  so  that  correction  may  be  made. 


File  No.  841.731/140. 

Ambassador  W.  II.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  December  17,  1914- 
British  Government  informs  me  that  arrangements  are  being  made  to  allow  the  use  of 
Meyers  Atlantic  Cotton  code,  29th  edition  in  foreign  telegrams  and  that  a  public  announcement 
on  the  subject  will  be  made  as  soon  as  the  date  of  the  admission  of  the  code  is  settled.  It  is  not 
at  present  practical)lo  to  allow  the  use  of  more  than  one  cotton  code  and  British  Government 
are  informed  that  the  29th  edition  of  Meyers  code  is  the  one  most  generally  used. 

Page. 


Pile  No.  841.731/139. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  December  17,  1914- 
Your  771  December  16  and  773  December  16  and  my  1245  December  11.  In  that  confer- 
ence I  asked  the  censor  as  I  had  previously  asked  Su*  Edward  Grey  if  he  would  not  inform 
sender  when  his  telegram  was  stopped.  He  replied  that  this  would  prevent  him  from  finding 
out  whether  a  suspected  man  was  working  a  concealed  cable  and  defeat  the  whole  purpose  of 
the  censorship.  I  asked  him  next  if  he  would  not  show  me  the  stopped  ca])legrams,  he  replied 
that  that  would  be  illegal.  I  asked  next  if  he  would  not  inform  me  of  the  stopped  telegrams, 
this  he  has  not  promised  to  do.  As  I  receive  this  I  will  make  the  best  use  of  it  possible  to 
straighten  out  difficulties.  As  previously  reported  I  have  taken  the  subject  up  also  with  the 
Danish  and  Swiss  ministers  and  Itahan  and  Spanish  ambassadors.  The  Swiss  Minister  and  I 
once  made  joint  complaint. 

Page. 

File  No.  841.731/158. 

Ambassador  W.  11.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

Aaierican  Embassy, 

London,  December  IS,  1914. 
Your  telegram  369,  November  20.  I  have  just  received  the  following  mcmorandimi  from 
the  British  Goverimient  showing  the  present  regulations  regarding  the  use  of  codes  in  foreign 
telegrams.  You  will  notice  that  Bentley's  complete  phrase  code  is  included  in  this  list  which  I 
presume  is  the  code  which  Mi-.  E.  P.  Thomas,  president  of  the  United  States  Steel  Products 
Company,  wishes  to  have  added  to  the  list  of  codes: 

(1)  Tlic  ii.-ic  of  code  will  bo  permitted  in  telegrams  passing  between  Uie  United  Kingdom  on  tlte  one  liand  and  coim- 
triea  outside  the  European  telegraph  system  on  tlie  other,  with  the  following  exceptions:  Abyssinia,  Annam,  Argentine 
Republic,  Brazil,  British  Honduras,  British  New  Guinea,  Cocliiu  Cliina,  Comoro  Islands,  Dutch  East  Indies,  French 
Somali  Coast  and  Italian  possessions  in  East  Africa,  Falkland  Islands,  Flinders  Islands,  ftench  India,  Guinea  (Dutch 


CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS.  85 

and  Frcncli)  Iledjaz,  Liberia,  Aradafiawar,  Now  Caledonia,  PaiaRiiay,  Poulo  C'ondore,  Reunion,  St.  Pierre  and  >n<iiieIoii, 
Ton(|iiin,  Uni^niay,  Yemon.  Tho  fnllowiiig  places  in  West  Africa,  namely:  French  posseMaioiiH  Angola  and  F<Tiian.li'> 
Po  and  the  following  islands  in  tlie  West  Indies,  namely:  Aruba,  Bonaire,  Guadeloupe,  Liw  Saintes,  Maria  Galante, 
Martinique,  St.  Croix,  St.  Tliomas  and  Tobago. 

(2)  Tlie  following  code.-t  selected  in  consultation  with  the  board  of  trade  are  authorized :  ABC,  5th  edition ;  Bentley's 
complete  phnwo  code,  not  including;  tlic  separate  mining  and  oil  supplement.^  Broomliall's  imperial  combination  code, 
not  including  tho  special  rubber  edition;  Liebers  code;  Meyers  Atlantic  cotton  code,  39th  edition,  Scott's  code,  10th 
edition,  Western  Union  code. 

(3)  Messages  in  private  code  or  in  any  unrecognized  code  are  stopped  before  reaching  tho  censors. 

(4)  Neither  private  supplement-*  nor  the  numerical  eqvivalents  of  the  phrases  in  published  codes  are  a<lnii.«sil)le. 
It  should  be  especially  rememliered  that  groups  or  series  of  numbers  and  similar  expre.-wions  (e.  g.  prices  of  stocks;  are 
not  necessarily  admissible  because  they  appear  in  code  if  the  decode  would  not  liavo  passed  tlio  censors;  neitlierwill 
tlie  coded  messages  be  passed. 

(.'))  All  messages  in  code  are  decoded  imder  arrangements  made  by  tlve  Po.st  OflSce  for  submission  to  the  censors. 
Every  effort  is  made  to  avoid  delay  in  this  operation.  It  tends  liowcver  to  expedite  tlie  transmission  of  telegrams  if 
persons  handing  in  coded  tel(!grams  deposit  at  the  same  time  translations  of  tho  messages. 

(6)  In  all  cases  tlie  name  of  tlie  code  used  must  be  indicated  on  tlie  form. 

(7)  No  chirge  is  made  for  tlie  transmission  of  tlie  name  of  the  code  but  a  fee  of  6  pence  is  charged  for  each  outward 
telegram  in  code. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/170. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

British  Embassy, 
Washington,  December  31,  1914- 

PRO    MEMORIA. 

Tho  question  of  the  stoppage  and  detention  of  commercial  telegrams  between  the  United 
States  and  Europe  has  been  brought  before  the  British  Government  by  the  United  States 
Ambassador. 

About  50,000  commercial  telegrams  a  day  pass  through  the  commercial  cables  censorship. 
Of  these  a  small  number  have  been  delayed  or  stopped  owing  to  the  fact  that  there  has  been 
reason  to  suspect  that  political  and  military  news  has  been  conveyed  to  belhgerent  countries 
by  means  of  concealed  codes. 

The  following  arrangement  has  been  communicated  to  the  United  States  Ambassador. 

Wliencver  the  date  of  the  despatch  and  addresses  of  sender  and  destined  receiver  are  given, 
the  censor  will  inform  the  United  States  Ambassador  in  London  whether  the  cable  has  been 
stopped  and  the  reason  for  stopping  it. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  observed  that  not  all  cables  between  Europe  and  the  United  States 
pass  through  the  British  censor. 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  841  731/165. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase  ] 

AjfERiCAN  Embassy, 
London,  December  22,  1914. 
Ambassador  Page  informs  the  Department  that  on  December  21  no  cables  to  the  United 
States  were  stopped,  but  that  two  from  the  United  States  were  stopped  for  the  reason  that  they 
stated  that  a  British  ship  had  been  sunk  which  was  not  true. 


File  No.  841.731/151. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Depaktment  of  State, 
Washington,  December  22,  1914. 
Governor  General  Phihppines  informs  War  Department  Chambers  of  Commerce  Manila 
report  business  firms  suifering  serious  loss  due  delay  transmission  purely  commercial  cable- 
grams, by  censorship.  In  another  message  Governor  General  states  Compania  General  Taba- 
cos  Fihpinoa  complains  loss  ca])legrams  exchanged  with  head  office  Barcelona.  Comjiany  asks 
permission  be  obtained  for  transmission  purely  business  messages  in  Enghsh  signed  Tabacalera 
Company  via  London. 

Urgently  represent  to  Foreign  Office.     Inform  Department  result. 

Bryan. 


86  CENSORSHIP   OF   TELEGRAMS. 

KiloXo  S41. 731/183. 

Ambassador  Tl".  JI.  Pafje  in  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  December  29,  1914. 
I  am  unofruially  informed  by  the  British  authorities  that  a  telegram  despatched  by  the 
Minister  at  Peking  to  tlio  Consul  General  at  Hong  Kong  was  lield  up  by  the  censor  at  Ilong  Kong 
owing  to  its  having  been  sent  in  cipher.  According  to  Britisli  censorship  regulations  -wliich  were 
communicated  to  you  early  in  August,  cipher  messages  are  permitted  only  between  diplomatic 
ofRcers  and  their  governments.  In  this  particular  cfise,  however,  British  Government  has 
given  instructions  to  pass  the  message.  It  might,  however,  save  possible  future  delay  of  tele- 
grams if  the  Peking  Legation  were  reminded  of  the  existing  regulations. 

Page. 


FUe  No.  841.731/183. 

The  Acting  Secretary  cf  State  to  Minister  ReinscTi. 

•  [Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

JVashington,  January  2,  1915. 
The  acting  Secretary  of  State  informs  Minister  Reinsch  that  the  Britisli  authorities  advise 
the  American  iVmbassador  at  London  that  a  cipher  telegram  sent  by  Minister  Reinsch  to  Consul 
General  at  Hong  Kong  was  held  up  by  the  censor  there,  but  later  was  allowed  to  pass. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  further  iirfonns  Minister  Reinsch  that  the  British  censorship 
regulations  provide  that  only  messages  passing  between  diplomatic  missions  and  the  Govern- 
ment at  Washington  may  go  in  cipher  and  that  all  otliers  must  be  open. 


File  No.  811.731/44. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  January  4,  1915. 
Sir  Edward  Grey  sends  me  a  copy  of  a  telegram  addressed  by  Lever  Brothers  of  Port 
Sunlight,  England,  to  Solomon  Brothers,  Nassau,  Bahamas,  which  appears  to  have  been  stoppt^d 
by  the  United  States  censor  at  Miami,  Florida.  Tlie  senders  declare  the  telegram  purely 
commercial.  Sir  Edward  Grey  asks  if  it  were  stopped  by  United  States  censor  that  it  may  be 
released  and  forwarded  to  its  destination.     The  telegram  is  as  follows : 

Port  Sunlight,  Liverpool, . 

To  Solomon  Brothers,  Nassau,  Bahamas: 

Advance  tiger  lion  blue  mottled  15  pence;  harpoon  archer  18  pence;  pales  6  pence;  browns  carbolics  1  shilling,  cwt. 
(Cable  company's  number  246.) 

Lever  Brothers. 
Page. 


File  No.  811.731/44. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  IL  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  5,  1915. 
As  message  appears  to  be  partially  in  code,  the  Department  would  be  pleased  to  forward  it 
after  being  put  in  plain,  commercial  language.     Bring  this  to  early  attention  of  Sir  Edward 
Grey  to  have  Uttle  delay  as  possible. 

Bryan. 

Pile  No.  841.731/218. 

Ambassador  W.  IL  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  January  8,  1915. 
Mr.  Page  says  lie  regrets  to  report  that  the  stojiping  of  commercial  cables  continues  in 
perhaps  a  slightly  diminished  number,  but  there  are  stopped  out  of  perhaps  10,000  from  40  to 
60  a  day,  and  the  chief  cause  given  is  suspicion  of  technioal  commercial  terms.  He  says  he 
continues  to  insist  on  emplojnnent  of  men  Ivuowing  the  terms,  especially  in  reference  to  the 
cotton  trade,  and  thinks  it  wUl  be  necessary  to  inform  our  telegraphic  companies  and  commercial 
bodies  that  the  exclusion  from  telegrams  of  every  technical  word  will  bo  of  greater  help  tlum 
anything  else. 


CENSOKSniP   OF   TELEGRAMS.  87 

File  No.  841.731/224. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  11.  Page. 

[Telegram— Paraphrase .] 

Department  of  State, 

WasJiington,  January  12,  1915. 

Mr.  Bryan  directs  Ambussador  Pago  to  state  to  Foroigu  Office  that  Department  regrets 
to  appear  insistent  upon  point  that  notification  should  be  given  legitimate  commercial  firms 
of  stopped  messages,  and  opportunity  afTordcd  to  these  firms  to  <-]iange  a  word  or  words  in 
the  me-ssages  in  ord(>.r  that  tlioy  may  be  made  more  clear  to  the  censors.  Mr.  Brj^an  says  tlio 
argument  that  if  notification  were  given,  senders  of  the  stopped  massages  would  have  oppor- 
tunity to  change  the  use  of  concealed  codes  seems  to  be  foreign  to  the  subject  as  the  exact 
codes  which  should  be  used  have  already  beeii  designated  hy  the  British  Government  and  they 
have  stated  that  plain  English  words  should  be  used,  as  far  as  practicable,  with  the  phraseology 
of  trade. 

Mr.  Bryan  adds  that  all  commercial  organizations,  the  larger  cotton  exchanges,  and  parties 
protesting  throughout  the  country  are  being  notified  to  use  plaui  English  words  in  cable  messages. 


File  No.  841.  731/83. 

Tlie  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  WiUard. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  16,  1915. 
Ambassador  Willard  is  instructed  to  find  out  whether  Spanish  ccnsoi"s  are  holding  up 
commerciid  cabl(>grams  exchanged  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  and  if  true,  urgently 
request  Foreign  Office  to  allow  all  neutral  cable  messages  to  and  from  the  United  States  to  go 
through.  In  presenting  this  matter  to  the  Foreign  Office,  Ambassador  Willard  is  requested 
to  ])oint  out  the  great  injury  inflicted  on  commerce  of  both  countries  by  the  suppression  of 
purely  commercial  cablegrams. 


File  No.  851.  731/10. 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

Paris,  January  18,  1915. 
RefeiTing  to  Department's  instructions  340,  November  20,  and  its  telegram  369,  December 
11.     Foreign  Office  just  advises  me  that  Bently,  Broomhall,  and  Meyer  codes  liave  been  admit- 
ted for  telegraph  messages  sent  over  French  lines  imder  same  conditions  presented  for  codes 
previously  admitted,  which  was  reported  in  Embassy's  299  of  November  21. 

Sharp. 

File  No.  851. 731A1. 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

Paris,  January  23,  1915. 
Your  286,  November  20,  and  subsequent  instructions  relative  to  protests  from  business 
firms  of  the  censorship  of  commercial  telegrams  to  neutral  countries. 

Foreign  Office  now  assures  me  that  French  Government  desirous  of  facilitating  commer- 
cial telegraphic  communications  between  neutrals  in  every  way  compatible  with  existing  con- 
ditions and  that  orders  have  been  given  by  ^liuistry  of  War  with  a  view  to  allowing  commercii.1 
messages  to  pass  with  as  httle  delay  as  possible  and  minimum  inconvenience  to  interested 
parties.  "Wlienever  delivery  of  a  message  is  denied  the  sender  will  be  notified.  WUl  at  once 
discuss  with  Foreign  Office  matter  contained  m  your  496  of  Januarv  22,  7  p.  m. 

Sharp 


88  CENSORSHIP    OF    TELEGRAMS. 

FUe  No.  841.  731/290a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  \\\  II.  Page 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  St.ate, 

]yashington,  January  25,  1915. 
Following  from  Embassy  at  Paris: 

Foreign  Office  Jiow  lussures  me  that  French  Government  desirou.s  of  facilitating  commercial  telegraphic  commu- 
nications between  neutrals  in  every  way  compatible  with  existijij;  conditionB  and  that  orders  have  been  given  by 
Ministry  of  War  with  a  view  to  allowing  commercial  messages  to  pass  with  as  little  delay  as  possible  and  minimum 
inconvenience  to  interested  parties,     ^^^lenever  delivery  of  a  message  is  denied  the  sender  will  be  notified. 

Please  bring  to  attention  Foreign  Office,  if  you  think  desirable,  in  hope  that  British  Gov- 
ernment may  be  disposed  to  adopt  similar  measures. 

Bryan. 


FUe  No.  841.731/295. 

Ambassador  TT.  //.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

AiiERicAX  Embassy, 
London,  January  28, 1915. 
British  Government  now  informs  me  that  Meyers  Atlantic  cotton  code,  39th  edition,  may 
be  employed  in  telegrams  between  the  United  Eangdom  and  any  country  on  the  extra  European 
telegraph  system.     This  does  not  include  British  colonies. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/318. 

Ambassador  IF.  77.  Page  to  ilie  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

jViiERicAx  Embassy, 

London,  February  3, 1915. 
Mr.  Page  reports  that  at  his  request  the  whole  ntunber  of  telegrams  going  both  ways  for 
three  days  was  counted  by  the  censor,  who  reported  that  the  nimiber  stopped  between  the 
United  States  and  HoUand  was  14  per  cent  of  the  total  n\miber,  and  3  per  cent  between  Scan- 
dinavian countries  and  the  United  States. 


File  No.  841.731/303. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  II.  Page. 

No.  584]  Department  of  Sta+e, 

JVasTiington,  February  3,  1915. 

Sir:  With  further  reference  to  the  matter  of  the  censorship  of  cablegrams  by  the  British 
authorities,  your  attention  is  directed  to  the  enclosed  copy  of  a  letter,^  dated  January  19,  from 
the  manager  of  the  Washington,  D.  C,  office  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company. 

You  will  note  the  contention  of  the  company  that  the  British  Government  should  rely 
upon  the  French  censorship  to  stop  objectionable  messages  passing  through  France  via  England 
en  route  to  neutral  coimtries  and  beyond,  just  as,  under  the  present  revised  regulations,  they  are 
relying  upon  the  French  censors  to  stop  code  messages  for  France. 

The  department  concurs  in  the  statement  of  the  company  that  it  seems  "illogical  and  a 
serious  detriment  to  American  trade  and  business  enterprise,"  that  cable  messages  sent  to 
neutral  countries,  which  must  pass  through  French  territory  but  which  are  sent  via  England, 
should  be  held  up  by  the  British  censor,  while  other  messages  sent  via  France,  and  not  by  way 
of  England,  are  permitted  to  pass  by  the  French  censors. 

Please  take  up  this  matter  with  the  Foreign  Office  and  endeavor  to  bring  about  an  arrange- 
ment whereby  any  cablegrams  destined  for  points  in  Europe  and  which  must  pass  throiigli 
French  territory,  shall  be  censored  by  the  French  censors  and  shall  not  be  interfered  with  by 
the  British  authorities. 

This  seems  to  the  department  to  be  a  most  reasonable  arrangement  and  it  is  earnestly 
hoped  that  your  efforts  in  the  premises  may  be  successful. 
I  am,  etc.. 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 

*  Kot  printed. 


CENSORSHIP  OF  TELEGRAMS.  89 

File  No.  841.731/323. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  If.  Page 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

Depautment  of  State, 
Washington,  Fehruary  10, 1915. 
Mr.  Bryan  says  tlio  dcpartmont  is  receiving  many  protests  from  commercial  organizations 
against  British  Government's  refusal  to  permit  code  telegrams  to  pass  between  the  Ignited 
States  and  certain  of  the  South  American  countries.  In  bringing  tliis  to  the  attention  of  the 
Foreign  Office,  Mr.  Bryan  instructs  Mr.  Page  to  point  out  tliat  the  telegrams  under  discussion 
are  messages  between  neutral  countries  entirely  outside  war  zone;  that  the  matter  of  coding 
messages  to  South  America  is  one  in  which  this  Government  is  deeply  interested  and  is  of  greatest 
importance  to  American  commercial  houses,  and  directs  him  to  urge  an  early  reply. 


File  No.  857.731/15. 

Consul  General  Thackara  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

American  Consulate  General, 

Paris,  February  12, 1915. 
Mr.    Tliackara    transmits    the    following    code    regulations    authorized    by    the    French 
Government : 

USE  OF  TELEGRAPHIC  CODE.S  IN  FRANCE. 

Telegrams  from  I'Yanro,  Algeria,  and  Tunis,  to  countries  situated  outside  Europe,  excluding  wireless  messages, 
may  bo  sent  in  the  following  codes:  ABC,  5th  edition;  Scott's,  10th  edition;  West<"ni  Union ;  Lieber's  code;  CodeAZ;* 
Bentley's  Complete  Phrase  Code,  not  including  the  special  supplements  for  minini;  and  oil  industries;  *  Broomhall's 
Imperial  Combination  Code,  not  including  the  special  supplement  for  rubber;  *  Meyer's  Atlantic  cotton  code,  39th 
edition.*  The  codes  marked  witii  a  star  (*)  may  not  be  used  tor  correspondence  with  British  possessions  and 
protectorates. 

The  lu^e  of  two  or  more  codes  in  one  message  is  forbidden.  Tlie  name  of  the  code  used  must  be  marked  on  the 
telegram.  The  figures  of  the  code  must  not  be  used,  but  only  the  word-code,  and  supplementarj'  words,  whoso  tran.<ila- 
tion  is  not  printed  in  the  code,  are  forbidden.  Telegrams  whose  sense,  after  translation,  does  not  appear  clear,  nor 
apply  to  commercial,  industrial,  or  private  business  are  not  accepted.  To  facilitate  business  and  accelerate  the  trans- 
mission of  telegrams,  a  translation  of  the  code  message  must  be  attached  thereto  when  it  is  lianded  in  for  despatch. 
Code  messages  are,  according  to  their  ultimate  destination,  forwarded  for  e.xamination  to  Brest,  Paris,  or  Marseilles. 
The  plain  language  translation  is  charged  for  at  the  rate  of  5  centimes  ($0.00965)  per  woid,  except  for  telegrams  handed 
in  at  Paris,  Brest  or  Marseilles,  and  which  consequently  have  not  to  be  telegraphed  overland  to  an  examining  office. 

The  above  regulations  do  not  apply  in  the  case  of  official  or  State  telegrams  of  neutral  coim tries  wlxich  have  received 
authorization  to  make  use  of  a  secret  code. 

The  following  is  the  list  of  countries  with  which  the  exchange  of  telegrams  in  code  is  authorized: 

Africa. — All  countrie,<  except  Abyssinia,  German  Southwest  Africa,  German  East  Africa,  Algeria,  Tlie  Cameroons, 
Canary  Islands,  Belgian  Congo,  Morocco,  Angola,  Spanish  possessions  in  Northern  Africa,  Italian  possessions  in  tiie 
Red  Sea,  Tripoli,  Tunis.  Routes  of  communication:  Dakar,  Teneriff,  Marseilles-Malta,  Madeira,  Sudan  (for  French 
West  Africa  only). 

North  America. — -AH  countries  except  Mexico,  where  telegrams  in  code  are  accepted  only  for  Vera  Cruz  and 
sent  via  Galveston.    Routes  of  communication:  P.  Q.  Anglo-Commercial,  Direct  Cable  and  Western  Union. 

Central  America  and  the  Antilles. — All  countries  except  Curacao  and  British  Honduras.  Routes  of  communi- 
cation: Northern  Routes  (P.  Q.  Anglo-Commercial,  Direct  Cable,  and  Western  Union). 

South  AMERicA.^Bolivia,  Peru  (except  Masisea,  Orellana,  Roquena,  Iquitos,  and  Itaj'a),  Paraguay,  Argentina, 
Uniguay.  Routes  of  communkation:  Dakar-Ascension,  Madeira-Ascension,  Marseilles-Malta  or  England-Ascension, 
and  the  Northern  Routes. 

South  Amemca  (continued). — Republic  of  Panama,  Ecuador,  Colombia,  BritLsli  Guiana,  PVench  Guiana  and 
Venezuela.     Routes  of  communication:  Northern  Routes. 

A.si.^. — All  countries,  except  Uedjaz,  Yemen,  Turkey  in  Asia,  Turkish  j\rchipelago,  Russia  in  Asia,  Caucasus,  and 
Transcaspian  Russia.     Routes  of  communication:  Marseilles,  Malta. 

Oceania. — All  countries,  except  the  Caroline  Islands,  Marsliall  Islands,  and  Dutch  Indies.  Routes  of  communi- 
cation: Dakar-Ascension,  Marseilles,  Malta,  P.  Q.  Anglo-Commercial,  Direct  Cable,  Western  Union 


File  No.  841.731/396. 

Arnhassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State., 

No.  904.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  February  15, 1916. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  informed  me  that  the  search 

which  tlic  censors  are  making  to  ascertahi  the  reasons  for  stopping  commercial  telegrams  brings 

this  result,  viz.,  that  of  60  or  70  telegrams  emanating  from  the  United  States  and  dated  in 

November  or  December,  they  find  that  only  3  were  stopped  by  the  British  censors. 

I  have,  etc., 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


90  CLNSORSHIP  OK  TELEGRAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/376a. 

T^  Counselor  to  the  British  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  16, 1915. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  May  I  again  call  your  attention  to  the  seriousness  of  the 
intcrniption  by  the  British  censors  of  strictly  conimerciiJ  ca})l('grams  pertaining  to  noncon- 
traband  goods  exchanged  between  this  country  and  other  neutral  countri.;s,  especially  Scandi- 
navian countries. 

It  would  be  most  gratifying  if  I  could  have  your  assistance  in  an  effort  to  bring  about 
some  arrangement  with  your  Government  whereby  the  relief  which  is  needed  so  much,  not 
only  by  the  United  States  but  by  the  other  neutral  countries,  may  be  obtained. 

I  should  be  very  glad  to  discuss  this  matter  with  you  whenever  you  can  conveniently 
call  on  me,  and  remain,  etc., 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  841.731/392. 

Memorandum  from  the  British  Embassy. 

British  Embassy, 
Washington,  February  19,  1915. 

With  reference  to  the  alleged  interruption  by  the  British  censors  of  strictly  commercial 
cablegrams  pertaining  to  noncontraband  goods  exchanged  between  the  United  States  and 
other  neutral  countries.  His  Majesty's  Government  announce  that  an  enquiry  just  completed 
into  a  batch  of  60  or  70  telegrams  forming  part  of  some  350  submitted  by  the  United  States 
Ambassador  in  January  has  estabhshed  the  fact  that  only  3  were  stopped  hy  tlie  British  censor. 

The  present  rule  is  that  senders  of  stopped  telegrams  are  only  notified  if  their  telegrams 
have  been  stopped  for  technical  breaches  of  the  censorship  rcgidations,  such  as  omission  of  the 
sender's  name,  insufficient  address,  etc.  If  telegrams  are  stopped  becaus3  they  are  of  a  prej- 
udicial nature,  it  is  obviously  undesirable  to  warn  senders  immediately. 

The  question  of  notifying  after  the  lapse  of  a  certain  interval  of  time  the  senders  of  stopped 
telegrams  who  make  enquiries  and  of  refunding  the  fidl  or  partial  cost  is  under  consideration 
by  His  Majesty's  Government. 

In  January  investigation  was  also  made  into  two  out  of  several  hsts  supphed  by  the  Swiss 
Minister  in  London.  Of  the  97  messages  it  was  ascertained  after  careful  search  that  only  31 
reached  the  British  censors;  20  of  these  were  passed  and  11  were  quite  justifiably  held  up  for 
various  violations  of  the  censorship  regidations,  e.  g.,  inclusion  of  code  words,  omission  of 
sender's  name,  etc. 

Lastly,  out  of  a  large  number  of  complaints  made  by  the  Italian  Government  in  regard  to 
special  cables  it  was  found  that  only  14  had  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  British  censors 
and  none  of  them  had  been  held  up. 


FUe  No.  841.731/385. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  February  24, 1915. 
Your  1107,  February  10.  Foreign  Office  informs  me  that  instructions  were  issued  to 
British  censors  last  September  that  telegrams  exchanged  between  North  and  South  America 
were  to  be  passed  without  censorship.  British  Government  thinks  tliat  either  L^nited  States 
Government  has  been  misinformed  regarding  the  authorities  by  whom  the  telegrams  in  question 
have  been  stopped,  or  that  some  of  the  British  censors  have  misunderstood  their  instructions. 
If  information  received  by  United  States  Government  proves  to  be  correct,  British  Government 
asks  for  details  regarding  stopping  of  telegrams  in  order  to  correct  misunderstanding  which 
must  have  occurred. 

Page. 


CENSOESIlir   OF   TELEGRAMS.  91 

File  No.  199.1/133. 

Ambassador  W.  TI.  Page  to  the  Secretary  oj  State. 

No.  1028.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  ifarch  10,  1015. 
Siu:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  hcrowitli  inclosed  copy  of  a  memorandum  from  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  together  with  copies  of  inclosures'  therein  mentioned. 
I  have,  etc., 

Waltek  Hines  Page. 


[Inclosure.] 

Foreign  Office,  London,  March  5,  1915. 

MEMORANDUM. 

The  American  Ambassador  will  doubtless  remember  that  on  the  17th  November  last  Sir  Edward  Grey  drew  his 
attention  to  the  manner  in  which  certain  telegrams  from  private  individuals  and  commercial  firms,  detrimental  to 
British  interests,  were  being  sent  through  the  State  Department,  and  the  censorship  authorities  have  brought  to  Sir 
Edward  Grey's  notice  the  fact  that  this  practice  is  still  continued. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  would  point  out  that  Government  mes,sages  such  as  those  sent  by  the  State  Department  obtain 
priority  over  ordinary  commercial  messages  and  that  this  is  an  advantage  which  messages  of  the  sort  referred  to  should 
not  enjoy  over  those  of  other  traders. 

He  considers  that  His  Majesty's  Government  can  not  he  asked  to  agree  to  British  cables  being  used  for  the  purpose 
of  facilitating  commercial  transactions  with  enemy  countries. 

Seven  instances  of  the  tj'pe  of  message  referred  to,  out  of  a  very  large  numljer  which  have  passed  through  the 
censor's  hands,  are  annexed.  In  spite  of  the  prejudicial  natiu-e  of  their  contents,  all  these  messages  have  been  for- 
warded to  their  destinations. 

Another  telegram  which  has  just  come  into  the  hands  of  the  censors  is  also  annexed  (No.  8).  This  message  con- 
tains a  request  for  the  repetition,  as  Government  mes.sage,  of  telegrams  connected  with  trade  with  the  enemy  which 
the  censor  has  stopped.  In  the  circumstances,  Sir  Edward  Grey  does  not  feel  that  this  telegram  can  properly  be 
forwarded. 


File  No.  199.1/114. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Wasliingion,  March  16,  1915. 
Mr.  Bryan  acknowledges  Embassy's  1752  of  the  9th  instant'  and  informs  Mr.  Page  that 
the  Department  on  this  date  sent  instructions  to  all  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  to  dis- 
continue tmtil  further  instructed  the  forwarding  of  private  commercial  messages,  and  says  in 
the  future  the  Department  will  adopt  the  following  form  in  reply  to  requests  for  the  official 
transmission  of  private  cables  relating  to  commercial  transactions  in  belligerent  coim tries: 

The  British  Government  is  not  willing  to  extend  to  private  commercial  messages  the  same  immunity  accorded 
by  them  to  the  official  communications  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  o\-er  cable  routes  which  pass  through 
British  jurisdiction.  As  the  message  which  you  have  requested  the  Department  to  forward  comes  under  this  regula- 
tion, the  Department  regrets  that  it  is  at  the  present  time  unable  to  comply  with  yoiu-  request  to  forward  the  message 
officially  and  suggests  that  it  be  sent  in  the  ordinary  way. 

At  the  same  time  you  are  advised  that  the  general  subject  of  facilitating  cable  communication  over  lines  controlled 
by  the  British  Government  is  now  under  discussion  and  it  is  hoped  that  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  matter  may 
be  reached. 

Mr.  Bryan  instructs  Mr.  Page  to  inform  the  Foreign  Office  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  understands  that  the  objection  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  to  the  trans- 
mission of  the  commercial  cables  referred  to  by  Mi\  Page,  and  others  of  similar  character,  is 
not  based  upon  suspicion  that  they  are  being  sent  in  a  private  code  which  may  carry  a  con- 
cealed meaning,  but  because  they  are  supposed  to  come  within  the  rule  established  for  the 
guidance  of  the  British  censor  which  is  set  forth  in  Paragraph  6,  Foreign  Office  Memorandum, 
February  1 ,  which  is  as  follows : 

All  cables  which  show  a  clear  e\'idence  either  by  the  text  of  the  telegram  or  by  known  facta  as  to  the  sender  or 
addressee  that  they  refer  to  contraband  or  noncontraband  to  which  a  resident  in  an  enemy  country  is  one  of  the  parties, 
are  liable  to  be  stopped. 

llv.  Bryan  says  that  the  difficulty  in  applying  this  rule  is  that  the  censor  has  stopped  many 
private  commercial  cables  which  in  fact  did  not  properly  come  within  the  ruling.  The  Depart- 
ment, he  says,  has  carefully  and  in  good  faith  applied  the  rule  to  private  conmiercial  cables 
sent  by  it,  that  the  question  in  each  case  is  one  of  fact,  and  suggests  that  a  solution  might  be 
^  found  by  arranging  for  an  investigation  of  the  facts  in  doubtful  cases.  That  this  could  be  done 
if  the  British  Government  would  furnish  the  Embassy  promptly  with  copies  of  all  cables  stopped 
and  the  reasons  for  stopping  them.     Mr.  Bryan  states  that  the  claim  that  the  object  of  censor- 

1  Not  printed;  same  matter  appears  in  dispatch  No.  1028,  supra. 


92  CENSORSHIP    OK    TELEORAMS. 

ship  woiild  bo  defeated  if  the  sender  was  notofied  applies  only  to  cables  having  a  hidden  meaning 
and  can  not  bo  urged  in  case  of  actual  cnramcrcial  transactions,  even  when  supposed  to  be  with 
the  enemy.  Mr.  Bryan  says  that  as  a  j^art  of  the  arrangement  the  sender  might  bo  required  to 
sign  a  declaration,  under  oath  if  necessary,  stating  the  bona  fide  character  of  the  transaction, 
and  adds  that  it  is  understood  that  the  British  Government  recognizes  the  importance  as  a 
matter  of  policy  and  good  relationshi])  at  least  of  not  exercising  the  right  of  censorsliip  in  a 
way  to  interfere  with  legitimate  American  commercial  transactions  with  neutral  countries. 


File  No.  841.731/499. 

Ambassador  W.  U.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  1105]  Ajieeican  Embassy, 

London,  March  24,  1915. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  Department's  instructions  No.  584 
of  February  3  m  regard  to  the  censoi-ship  of  cablegrams  by  the  Britisli  authorities,  and  calling 
my  attention  to  the  copy  of  a  letter  inclosed  therein,  dated  January  19,  from  the  manager  of  the 
Washuigton  ofHce  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company,  and  directing  me  to  take  up  this 
matter  with  the  Forcigiv  Office  and  endeavor  to  bring  about  such  an  arrangement  as  is  outlined 
in  the  above-mentioned  letter. 

I  beg  to  advise  the  Department  that  I  am  now  m  receipt  of  a  note  from  Sir  Edward  Grey,  a 
copy  of  which  is  inclosed  herewith,'  under  date  of  March  18,  iu  reply  to  my  representations  in 
the  premises,  and  in  which  it  is  set  forth  that  the  censorsliip  authorities  can  not  see,  so  far  as 
they  are  aware,  that  anything  has  occurred  to  modify  the  necessity  of  retaining  the  power  of 
complete  control  over  trade  telegrams  to  or  from  neutral  countries  adjacent  to  Germany. 
I  have,  etc., 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


File  No.  851.731/19. 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  345]  American  Embassy, 

Pans,  March  24,  1915. 
Sir:  Referring  to  the  Department's  cipher  telegraphic  instruction  No.  369  of  December 
11,  8  p.  m.,  relative  to  the  complamts  of  the  nondelivery  of  telegrams  from  the  United  States 
regarding  the  purchase  and  sale  of  cotton,  and  reconimendmg  that  permission  be  granted  for  the 
use  of  Meyer's  or  Shepperson's  cotton  codes,  I  have  the  honor  to  report,  in  further  reference  to 
my  telegram  No.  464  of  January  16  advismg  the  Dejjartment  of  State  that  permission  had  been 
given  for  the  use  of  Meyer's  code,  that  the  Foreign  Office  has  just  advised  me  that  it  is  considered 
by  the  French  competent  authorities  that  the  addition  of  Shepperson's  code  to  those  ah-eady 
used  would  ordy  tend  to  complicate  the  telegrapliic  correspondence,  and  that  it  is  therefore  con- 
sidered that  the  ileyer's  code — which  is  more  complete  than  Shepperson's — should  be  sufficient 
for  the  necessities  of  cotton  merchants. 
I  have,  etc., 

Wm.  G.  Sharp. 


File  No.  199.1/135. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram-Paraphrase.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  March  26,  1915. 
Mr.  Page  reports  the  receipt  on  this  date  of  the  following  memorandum  from  the  British 
Foreign  Office  on  the  subject  of  the  censorship  of  cablegrams: 

MEMORANDUM. 

1.  Neutral  Governments  were  reminded  in  a  circular  at  the  Iieginning  of  the  war  of  the  right  which  His  Majesty's 
Government  pos.se.ss  under  treaty,  to  stop  all  telegrams  over  cables  which  they  control,  and  that  it  is  only  as  an  act 
of  good  will  that  their  transmission  is  permitted. 

2.  Notice  was  given  through  the  International  Biu-eau  at  Berne,  in  the  form  prescribed,  as  follows: 

"nia  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  iind  themselves  um'.er  the  necessity  of  availing  (liemselves  of  the  power 
reserved  under  Article  8  of  the  International  Telegraph  Convention  and  Article  1 7  of  the  1  nternational  RadiivTelegraph 
Convention  to  suspend  the  transmission  of  telegrams  and  radio-telegrams  to  and  from,  or  in  transit  through  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  to  and  from,  or  in  transit  through  all  British  Possessions  and  all  British  Protectorates  whatsoever,  save 
and  except  such  telegrams  and  radio-telegrams  as  are  on  the  8er-\dce  of  His  JIajesty's  Government  or  of  the  Government 
of  any  British  Possession  or  Protectorate. 


*  J^ot  printed. 


CENSOnSTIIP   OF   TELEGRAMS.  93 

"With  a  view,  however,  to  minimize  inronv-onionco  to  the  piihlir,  iris  nritannic  Majeaty's  Government  will,  \intil 
further  notice,  and  as  an  act  of  grace,  j)ormit  the  traasmiKsion  of  such  tijlegraiiis  and  radio-tologranis  in  plain  language 
as  foreign  Governments  or  the  public  choose  to  send,  provided  that  such  telegrams  and  radio-telegrams  are  written  in 
English  or  French,  and  on  the  understiinding  that  they  are  accepted  at  the  sender's  risk  and  subject  to  censorsliip  by 
the  British  authorities;  that  is,  that  they  may  be  stopped,  delayed  or  otherwise  dealt  with  in  all  respects  at  the  discretion 
of  those  authorities  and  without  notice  to  the  senders;  and  that  no  claims  in  respect  of  them,  whether  for  the  reimburse- 
ment of  the  sums  paid  for  transiiussion  or  otherwise,  will  bo  considered  by  Ilia  Majesty's  Government  in  any  circiun- 
stancea  whatever." 

Article  VIII  of  tlio  International  Telegraphic  Convontioa  (of  1875)  is  as  follows: 

"Each  Governmert  also  reserves  to  itself  the  power  to  interrupt  the  system  of  the  international  telegraphs  for  an 
indefinite  period,  if  it  judges  it  necessary,  either  generally,  or  only  wpm  certain  lines  and  for  certain  kinds  of  messages, 
upon  condition  that  it  immediately  advises  eaili  of  the  other  contracting  Governments." 

Articles  XVII  of  the  International  Radio-Telegraphic  Convention  makes  the  al)ove  Article  applicable  to  radio 
telegraphy. 

8.  The  necessity  for  control  of  cables  in  itfi  relation  to  matters  which  may  be  described  generally  as  being  of  a  purely 
naval  or  inilitary  nature  is  ob\'iou8  and  needs  no  demoastration.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  clear  that  in  view  of  the  great 
importiince  of  restricting  the  enemies'  supplies  and  withholding  facilities  from  them  for  carrying  on  their  trade  His 
Majesty's  Government  can  not  be  exjjecte  1  to  afford  the  use  of  Bviti.-sh  cables  to  enable  nuutral  anil  enemy  countries  to 
make  anangeinents  with  each  other  for  the  <onduct  of  that  trade  and  the  principle  upon  which  the  ceiLior.ship  of  com- 
mercial telegrams  is  conducted  is  to  withhold  so  far  as  British  caldes  are  concerned  all  facilities  for  carrying  on  trade 
directly  or  indirectly  with  an  enemy  country. 

4.  Accordingly  all  cables  are  liable  to  be  stoppotl  which  show  clear  evidence  either  by  the  text  of  the  telegram  or 
by  the  known  facts  as  to  the  sender  or  addressee  that  they  refer  to  a  transaction  whether  in  contraband  or  noncontraband 
to  wliich  a  resident  in  an  enemy  country  is  one  of  the  ])arties. 

5.  This  principle  it  will  be  observed  is  applied  impartially  to  British,  Allied  or  neutral  subjects  who  ondeavoin'  tc 
trade  with  the  enemy  through  the  medium  of  British  cables. 


File  No.  199.1/135. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  W.  Jl.  Page. 

No.  956.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington;  May  6,  1915. 

Sir:  The  Department  has  received  your  despatch  No.  122.3,  of  April  14,'  concerning  the 
presentation  of  stopped  cablegrams  to  the  Foreign  Office  m  coimection  with  the  discussion 
relative  to  the  cable  censorship  situation. 

In  reply  you  are  informed  that  the  Department  believes  that  for  the  present,  at  least,  you 
should  present  to  the  Foreign  Office  all  stopped  messages  sent  to  you,  requesting  that  it  be  so 
kind  as  to  furnish  you  with  reasons  in  each  case  as  to  why  the  message  was  not  forwarded. 

The  Department  is  sending  to  you  only  such  messages  as  appear  to  be  strictly  of  a  nature 

that  should  not  have  been  stopped  by  the  censors,  according  to  the  understandmg  had  with 

you  by  the  British  Government,  and  is  most  careful  to  discourage  the  sending  of  cablegrams 

that  in  its  judgment  would  not  be  passed  by  the  British  censors. 

I  am,  etc.. 

For  the  Secretary  of  vStato: 

Robert  Lansing.  « 


File  No.  841.731/561. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  W.  II.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Wasldngton,  May  IS,  1915. 

Referring  to  your  1107,  February  10.  Department  mformed  of  nondelivery  nine  code 
telegrams  concerning  coffee  shipments  to  United  States  addressed  ''Ornstein,  Rio  do  Janeiro," 
sent  by  L.  C.  Fallon  and  Company,  New  Orleans,  routed  over  Postal  Telegraph  Company  to 
New  York,  thence  to  Azores  by  Commercial  Cable  Company,  then  to  Rio  do  Janeu-o  by  Western 
Pacific  Cable  Company.  Telegrams  dated  March  12,  15,  two  telegrams  March  19,  24,  26,  and 
29,  April  1  and  20.  Also  one  other  telegram  sent  same  address  March  8  by  C.  A.  Fau-child 
and  Company,  New  York. 

Bring  to  attention  Foreign  Office,  pomting  out  suppression  purely  commercial  cablegrams 
of  neutral  character  exchanged  between  United  States  and  South  America  can  only  serve  as 
detriment  to  legitimate  business  entirely  outside  war  zone.  Request  early  uivestigation  and 
reason  in  each  case  why  message  stopped,  directing  attention  to  British  Government's  assur- 
ance that  censors  were  "instructed  last  September  to  pass  telegrams  exchanged  between  North 

and  South  America.     Please  reply  by  cable.  .^ 

'  -     ^  Bryan. 


1  Not  printed. 


L 


94  CENSORSUTP   OF   TELEf.RAMS. 

File  No.  841.731/586. 

Ambassador  W.  11.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  May  27,  1915. 

Your  1556  of  13th  re  telegram.^  concerning  coffee  shipments  from  South  America  lo  T^iiitofl 
States. 

Foreign  Office  inform.^  me  that  after  communication  with  censorship  authorities  it  has 
l)0("n  found  that  a  telegram  a(hh-ess(Hl  to  Omstein,  Rio  do  Janeiro,  from  the  United  States, 
dated  March  24,  was  detained  in  London  on  the  ground  that  it  was  in  private  code  and  without 
signature.  The  fact  that  the  message  was  in  transit  between  North  and  South  America  was 
unfortunately  overlooked,  but  no  trace  can  be  found  of  the  other  telegrams  mentioned;  but  in 
view  of  probability  that  an  occasional  oversight  of  this  nature  is  more  likely  to  occur  in  the 
United  Kingdom  than  at  stations  on  the  direct  route  between  North  and  South  America  the 
censorship  authorities  hesitate  to  assert  positively  that  they  were  not  detamed  in  England. 
Foreign  Office  concludes  by  saying  that  the  attention  of  the  censors  concerned  abroad,  as  well 
as  in  the  United  Kmgdom,  has  been  called  to  the  necessity  of  observing  the  instructions  already 
issued  on  this  subject,  and  it  trusts  that  no  further  inconvenience  will  be   experienced   by 

American  firms  in  this  respect. 

Page. 


File  No.  841.731/604. 

Ambassador  IT'.  77.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  Stat z. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  June  3,  1915. 
Referring  to  Department's  May  29  and  Embassy's  June  1,  Mr.  Page  reports  that  he  is 
advised  by  the  Foreign  Office  that  after  a  careful  investigation  censor  cannot  trace  telegram 
in  question.  He  says  Foreign  Office  states  that  British  Government  wiU  pass  aU  messages 
between  North  and  South  American  countries  sent  by  way  of  United  Kingdom,  but  in  a  certain 
degree  these  messages  are  liable  to  be  held  up  by  accident.  Mr.  Page  suggests  that  persons  in 
the  United  States  who  wish  to  send  messages  to  South  American  countries  should  be  advised 
if  possible  to  use  a  cable  route  which  does  not  touch  Great  Britain  or  any  of  her  possessions. 


« 


PART   IX. 


BELGIAN  RELIEF. 


95 


BELGIAN  RELIEF. 

File  No.  855.48/1. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  7,  1914- 
Department  has  received  following  from  London,  whicli  you  may  communicate  to  Impe- 
rial Foreign  Office: 

Belgian  committee  has  been  formed  at  Brussels  under  the  patronage  of  the  American  and  Spanish  ministers  for 
the  purpose  of  importing  foodstuffs  for  the  poor  of  Belgium.  The  German  authorities  in  occupation  have  consented 
and  the  Belgian  Minister  here  informs  me  that  under  instructions  from  his  Government  he  has  obtained  permission  of 
the  British  authorities  for  the  export  of  supplies  on  condition  that  they  be  despatched  by  this  Embassy  and  consigned 
to  our  Legation  at  Brussels.  I  believe  it  would  be  well  to  ol)tain  a  definite  assurance  from  the  German  Government 
of  their  approval  of  this  humanitarian  project  the  execution  of  which  is  in  charge  of  an  American  citizen,  Mr.  Shaler, 
who  is  now  in  London  purchasing  supplies. 

Please  take  up  informally  with  Foreign  Office  and  cable  reply. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  855.48/33. 

Minister  Whitloclc  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Brussels,  October  16th,  191^. 

As  I  have  already  reported  to  the  Department,  a  committee  of  notable  citizens  of  Brussels 
was  appointed  several  weeks  ago  under  patronage  of  the  Spanish  Minister  and  myself  to  give 
food  to  the  poor  of  this  city.  This  work,  which  had  the  approval  of  the  Belgian  Government 
and  of  the  German  military  authorities,  has  been  carried  on  with  excellent  rcsiUts.  But  now 
a  grave  situation  confronts  the  land.  In  normal  times  Belgium  produces  only  one-sixth  of  the 
foodstuffs  she  consumes.  Within  two  weeks  there  will  be  no  more  food  in  Belgium.  Winter 
is  coming  on  and  there  are  thousands  who  are  without  home  and  without  hope,  therefore  it  is 
necessary  to  extend  this  relief  work  to  the  whole  of  Belgium.  My  Spanish  colleague  and  I  have 
been  requested  by  the  local  Belgian  authorities  and  by  the  German  military  authorities  to  per- 
mit the  organization,  under  our  patronage,  of  a  committee  that  wiU  undertake  to  revictual  all 
of  Belgium  and  we  have  secured  from  the  German  military  authorities  formal  official  assurance 
that  all  foodstuffs  shipped  into  Belgium  in  the  care  of  the  committee  and  uitended  for  the 
feeding  of  the  impoverished  civil  population  will  be  respected  by  the  soldiery  and  not  made  the 
object  of  military  requisition.  It  is  now  necessary  to  obtain  permission  from  the  English  Gov- 
ernment that  foodstuffs  may  bo  shipped  into  Belgium.  In  view  of  this  fact  Gibson  goes  to 
London  to-morrow  witli  messages  from  the  Spanish  Minister  and  me  to  the  respective  ambas- 
sadors of  our  countries  to  lay  the  subject  before  them.  Baron  Lambert  and  Mr.  Franqui, 
representing  the  Belgian  Relief  Committee,  wiU  accompany  him  to  acquaint  the  Belgian 
Minister  in  London  with  the  situation  and  ask  him  to  present  the  matter  to  the  British  Gov 
ernment.  Our  hope  is  that  the  Belgian  Minister  can  arrange,  and  if  there  be  no  impropriety 
in  their  so  doing,  that  the  American  and  Spanish  ambassadors  may  assist  him  in  arranging  for 
the  passage  of  the  provisions  which  the  Committee  is  ready  to  buy. 

I  trust  the  Department  will  approve  this  course  and  further  it  by  instructions  to  London. 

It  is  not  money  but  food  that  is  needed.     If  some  appropriate  means  can  be  found  to  call  the 

attention  of  our  generous  people  at  home  to  the  plight  of  the  poor  in  Belgium,  I  am  sure  that 

they  will  send  succor  and  relief  for  the  winter  that  is  drawing  near.     It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  work 

of  mercy  that  will  touch  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  brought  to  understand  it  and  give  our 

people  in  America  an  opportunity  to  serve  nobly  in  a  high  cause. 

Whitlock. 

4556°— 15 7  97 


98  BELGIAN  BEUEP. 

File  No.  855.48/5. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Tel^jani-l 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  19,  1914- 
Telegram  from  Embassy,  Berlin,  17tli  instant,  states  that  German  Government  approves  of 
plan  to  supplj'  the  population  of  Belgium  with  food.     You  are  authorized  therefore  to  proceed 
on  lines  of  your  786,  October  6.* 

Lansing. 


File  No.  855.48/7. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Whitloclc. 

[Telegram.] 

Depaetment  of  State, 

Washington,  October  19,  1914- 
Your  548,  18th.^     The  plan  of  the  Belgian  committee  in  Brussels  to  import  food  stuffs 
for  poor  of  Brussels  has  been  approved  by  the  German  Government  and  the  Embassy  in  London 
has  been  so  advised. 

Lansing. 


File  No.  855.48/7. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Whitloclc. 

iJTel^ram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  20,  1914. 
Your  telegram  October  16,  10  a.  m.  transmitted  via  London  regarding  rehef  of  Belgium. 
Department  approves  your  action  and  has  given  instructions  to  the  Ambassador  at  London  to 
render  you  and  your  Spanish  colleague  every  assistance. 

Lansing. 


FUe  No.  855.48/10. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  October  26,  1914. 
Your  389,  October  24.  The  commission  of  Belgian  relief  working  under  diplomatic  guidance 
of  Spanish  Ambassador  here  and  myself  has  written  assurance  of  the  German  military  com- 
mander of  Belgian  territory-  held  hj  the  Germans  that  food  sent  them  by  this  commission  wiU 
not  be  confiscated.  So  far  as  I  know  this  assurance  has  not  been  given  to  any  one  else  who 
may  send  food.  No  food  can  be  exported  from  England  or  Holland,  but  the  Netherlands 
Government  has  given  this  commission  permission  to  distribute  food  landed  at  Rotterdam 
through  our  agents  to  people  in  Belgian  territory.  Since  food  can  not  be  bought  on  this  side 
the  world,  American  committees  should  not  send  money  but  shoidd  confer  vrith.  Hoover,  chair- 
man of  this  commission,  care  of  this  Embassy,  regarding  what  kind  of  food  to  send  and  how  to 
ship  it.  Conunission  has  agents  in  every  neighborhood  in  Belgium.  It  has  in  fact  taken 
charge  of  practically  all  grocery  stores.  Money  sent  will  be  of  no  use.  Food  sent  except 
through  commission  may  never  reach  Belgium  or  be  confiscated. 

Page. 


File  No.  855.48/17. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Eerrick. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  SI,  1914- 
At  request  of  American  Minister  at  The  Hague  you  are  instructed  to  ask  whether  France 
wUl  give  assurance  of  recognition  of  neutrality  of  goods  shipped  for  American  conunission  for 
relief  in  Belgium. 

Lansing 


Not  printed;  substance  stated  in  instruction  to  Ambassador  Gerard  October  7, 1914,  supra  2  Xot  printed. 


BELGIAN   RELIEF.  99 

File  No.  855.48/29. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  7,  1914- 
Belgian  commission  requests   that  you  secure  from  German  Government   unmolested 
passage  for  neutral  food  ships  from  United  States  to  Holland  for  Belgium.    This  has  been  done 
by  British  Government. 

Also  inform  Department  whether  German  Government  has  placed  embargo  on  importa^ 
tion  into  Belgium,  in  neutral  ships,  of  thoroughly  disinfected  and  cleaned  secondhand  clothing. 

Lansing. 


File  No.  855.48/36. 

Ambassador  Herrick  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
Paris,  November  11,  191 4. 
Your  253,  10th.     Foreign  Office  states  that  instructions  have  already  been  sent  French 
Minister  at  the  Hague  to  offer  no  objection  to  transit  of  foodstuffs  through  the  Netherlands 
from  United  States  destined  to  Belgium.     At  Embassy's  request  Foreign  Office  stated  it  would 
repeat  instructions  to  Minister  at  the  Hague. 

Herrick. 

File  No.  855.48/43. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  20,  WlJ^. 
At  the  request  of  the  commission  for  Belgian  reUef,  you  may  obtain,  if  possible,  from  the 
German  Government  safe  passage  of  British  as  well  as  neutral  sliips  bound  for  Eotterdam  with 
food  for  starving  Belgians.  Such  ships  will  fly  the  commission's  flag.  Please  a.sk  German 
Goverimient  also  whether  permission  of  military  authorities  m  Belgium  may  be  obtained  for 
Americans  with  automobiles  to  go  from  place  to  place  engaged  in  food  distribution.  Such 
Americans  will  carry  commission's  flag  and  have  letters  each  with  bearer's  photograph  from 
the  commission,  countersigned  by  the  Spanish  and  American  ambassadors  at  London. 

Lansing. 


FDe  No.  855.48/54. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
Berlin,  November  23,  1914. 

Your  .590,  7th,  and  677,  20th. 

German  Government  is  entirely  in  sympathy  with  laudable  work  of  American  commission 
for  Belgium  relief.  German  naval  forces  can  not  lawfully  seize  food  on  neutral  ships  bound 
for  neutral  ports.  Germany  wiU  not  interfere  with  any  neutral  ships  bound  for  Holland  with 
food  from  the  United  States  even  if  food  is  destined  for  Belgium.  Subject  to  revoke  Germaai 
Government  agrees  to  permit  unneutral  ships  also  to  carry  food  for  Belgians  to  Dutch  ports 
and  wUl  give  same  guarantee  that  food  is  put  to  intended  uses  as  for  neutral  ships.  German 
Government  recommends  that  as  precaution  such  unneutral  ships  carry  certificate  frcm  com- 
petent Ameiican  authority  testifying  that  ship  carries  food  for  the  Belgians  to  be  brought  to 
Blelgium  via  Dutch  ports  by  American  Commission  for  Belgian  relief  with  the  consent  of  the 
German  Government,  and  that  uimeutrid  ships  also  have  pass  which  German  Ambassador, 
Washington,  will  issue  upon  certificate  above  described.     Inquiry  made  about  distribution  of 

food  by  Americans  in  automobiles. 

Gerard. 


File  No.  855.48/54. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

No.  1154]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  1,  1914. 
Excellency:  The  Department  is  in  receipt  of  a  telegram  from  the  American  Ambas- 
sador at  Berlin,  transmitting  tlie  information  that  the  German  Government  is  entirely  in 
sympathy  with  the  laudable  work  of  the  American  commission  for  the  Belgian  relief.     It  is 


100  BELGIAN   RELIEF. 

well  understood  that  German  naval  forces  can  not  law'fully  seize  food  on  neutral  ships  bound 
for  neutral  ports  and  tliat  Germany  will  not  interfere  witli  any  neutral  ship  bound  for  llolliind 
with  food  from  the  United  States,  even  if  the  food  is  destined  for  Belgium.  Subject  to  revoca- 
tion, the  German  Government  also  agrees  to  permit  unneutral  ships  to  carry  food  for  Belgium 
via  Dutch  ports  and  will  give  guarantee  that  the  food  is  utilized  to  the  purpose  intended.  The 
German  Government  recommends,  however,  that  as  a  precaution  such  umieutral  ships  shall 
be  furnished  with  a  certificate  from  competent  American  authorities  testifying  that  such  food 
carried  by  unneutral  ships  via  Dutch  ports  is  intended  for  the  rehef  of  Belgians  and,  further, 
that  the  unneutral  ships  shall  also  be  provided  with  a  pass  issued  by  your  Embassy  authenti- 
cating the  certificates  issued  by  the  American  Government. 

The  Department  believes  that  the  above  should  be  a  satisfactory  arrangement  and  hopes 
that  it  will  meet  with  Your  Excellency's  approval. 

An  early  reply  to  this  note  would  bo  greatly  appreciated. 

Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Brtan, 


File  No.  855.48/79. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
No.  10078]  Imperial  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  D.  C,  Decemher  4,  1914. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  In  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's  kind  note  of 
the  1st  instant,  I  have  the  honor  to  reply  to  Your  Excellency  that  I  concur  in  the  proposals 
therein  made. 

Accept,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 

File  No.  855.48/80. 

The  Gemuin  Amhassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
No.  10106]  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  December  5,  1.914. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:   Supplementing  my  note  of  the  4th  instant  I  have  the  honor 
to  inform  Your  Excellency  that  I  have  instructed  the  German  Consul  concerned  to  issue,  upon 
American  witnesses  being  brought  before  them,  safe  conduct  to  unneutral  ships  carrying 
victuals  for  Belgium. 
Accept,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 


Pile  No.  855.48/81. 

Consul  General  SHnner  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 

American  Consulate  General, 

London,  December  8,  1914. 
American  commission  relief  in  Belgium  provide  minmium  80,000  tons  cereal  foodstuffs 
monthly  and  could  handle  situation  except  for  shipping  difficulties.  Thirty  to  forty  ships  needed 
constantly.  Neutral  bottoms  being  unavailal)le,  have  chartered  some  British  ships  and  have 
German  agreement  not  to  interfere.  Reluctance  of  British  owners  to  send  ships  to  Rotterdam 
paralyzing  program  of  mercy,  execution  of  which  hourly  more  imperative.  Commission 
desire  to  know  if  American  Government  would  furnish  naval  ships  with  or  without  charter  on 
payment  of  reasonable  price.  Commission  liojie  character  of  enterprise  wUl  warrant  Govern- 
ment giving  it  assistance  sorely  needed. 

Skinner. 

PUe  No.  855.48/81. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Consul  General  Skinner. 
[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
WdshingtoT),  December  10,  1914- 
Your  December  8.     Department  informed  by  Navy  Department  there  are  no  suitable 
ships  which  can  ])0  utilized  for  purpose  mentioned.     Department  suggests  that  commission 
through  its  American  representatives  niiglit  charter  neutral  vessels.     Please  communicate  this 
to  American  Ambassador,  London. 

Bryan. 


BELGIAN   RELIEF.  101 

File  No.  855.48/93. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretanj  of  State. ^ 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
Berlin,  December  11,  1914. 
Department's  677,  November  20.     Foreign  Office  informs  me  that  dosirod  passes  for  Ameri  • 
cans  with  aiitomobiks  for  food  distribution  Belgium  have  Ix'cn  issued  by  arrangement  between 
competent  passport  authorities  m  Belgium  and  American  Relief  Commission. 

Gerard. 


File  No.  855.48/98. 

Memorandum  to  the  German  Embassy. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  IS,  1914. 
The  Department  of  State  presents  its  compliments  to  the  Imperial  German  Embassy  and 
has  the  honor  to  state  that  a  letter  has  hrvn  received  from  Mr.  Lindon  W.  Bates,  vice  chairman 
of  tlie  American  Commission  for  Kelief  hi  Belgium,  requesthig  that  an  expression  of  the  com- 
mission's very  great  appreciation  of  the  prompt  and  thorough  arrangements  which  have  been 
effected  with  reference  to  obtaniing  safe  conduct  for  unneutral  ships  sailing  for  Belgium  and 
Holland  loaded  with  food  supplies  for  the  relief  of  Belgium  be  conveyed  to  His  Excellency 
Count  von  Bernstorfif. 


File  No.  855.48/139. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  376.]  American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  December  28,  19 14- 
Sir:  Supplementing  my  telegram  of  even  date,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  j-ou  here- 
with a  copy  and  translation  of  a  note  verbale,  received  from  the  Imperial  German  Foreign 
Office,  dated  December  24,  1914,  relative  to  the  wording  of  the  certificates  M'ith  which  the  Ger- 
man Government,  desires  unneutral  ships  carrying  food  for  Belgians  to  be  provided. 
I  have,  etc., 

James  W.  Gerard. 


[Enclosure— Translation.] 
The  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

Foreign  Office,  Berlin,  December  24, 1914. 

NOTE   VERB.\LE. 

In  supploment  to  its  Note  Verbalo  of  November  23,  1914,  No.  II  W  K  Be.  179,  relative  to  the  supply  of  food  for 
the  p  ipnlation  of  no!o:iiun,  the  Foreign  Office  liaa  the  honor  to  inform  tlie  Embassy  of  the  United  Stat<'a  of  America 
tliiit  it  appe.irs  de.-irable  that  the  following  statements  should  be  included  in  the  certificates  with  which  unneutral  vessels 
are  to  be  provided : 

(a)  The  expressj  declaration : 

(1)  That  the  sliip  contains  solely  food  (and  clothing)  for  the  population  of  Belgiiun,  to  be  unloaded  in  a 

Dutch  port; 

(2)  An  undertaking  of  tlie  master  of  the  vessel  on  liis  word  of  honor  to  abstain  from  any  and  all  actions  on 

the  outward  or  return  voyage,  involving  assistance  to  our  opponents, 
(ft)  It  is  further  desired  that  the  following  should  be  pointed  out  in  the  certificates: 

(3)  That  certificate  and  pass  are  valid  only  for  the  single  outward  vorage,  and  are  to  be  delivered  to  the 

German  Consul  upon  arrival  at  the  Dutch  port  of  destination  or  to  the  Gorman  Minister  at  Tlie  Hague 
if  there  u  no  such  Consul.  Similar  papers  for  the  return  voyage  will  be  issued  by  the  Imperial  Ger- 
man Legation  at  Tlie  Hague; 

(4)  That  the  papers  do  not  bar  a  search  of  the  vessel,  and  the  cargo  must  be  stowed  so  that  search  can  be 

conducted  quickly  and  easily; 

(5)  Tliat  the  date  of  departure  from  the  United  States  is  to  be  communicated  to  the  Imperial  German 

Ambassador  at  Wasliington;  the  date  of  the  departure  from  the  NeUierlands  on  the  return  voyage 
is  to  be  communicated  to  tlie  Imperial  German  Minister  at  Tlie  Hague; 

(6)  Tliat  an  offence  against  these  provisions  or  against  the  obligations  assumed  works  forfeiture  of  all  right 

to  preferential  treatment. 
Tlie  Foreign  Office  begs  to  request  tlie  Embassy  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  be  good  enough  t»  take  the 
necessary  steps  in  order  tliat  the  Certificates  may  be  worded  in  accordance  witli  wliat  has  been  stated  above. 

1  Repeated  to  the  Embassy  at  London  and  the  LeRation  at  The  Hague 


102  BELGIAN   RELIEF. 

File  No.  855.48/125. 

Ambassador  W.  II.  Pa/je  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  Decenthrr  28,  1914. 
The  Foreign  Office  informs  me  that  the  British  naval  autiioritics  will  undertake  in  the 
future  to  facilitate  the  voyage  only  of  such  charity  ships  to  Rotterdam  as  contain  whole  cargoes 
of  food  for  Belgian  relief;  it  is  important  tliereforc  that  such  ships  should  not  contain  otlier 
cargo,  and  to  secure  this  protection  all  ships  for  Belgian  relief  must  be  reported  by  Lindon  Bates 
the  commission's  representative  in  New  York,  to  the  British  Ambassador  in  Washington.  After 
conferring  with  Sir  Cecil  Spring-Rice  it  might  be  advantageous  to  give  tliis  arrangement  wide 
publicity,  because  certain  societies  and  committees  continue  to  ship  contributions  of  food  in 
ships  that  carry  other  cargo. 

Page. 


File  No.  855.48/138. 

Minister  van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Extract.] 
No.  184.]  American  Legation, 

The  Ilague,  December  29,  Wl^. 
Sir:  I  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  a  report  which  appeared  in  the  American 
newspapers  a  month  or  sLx  weeks  ago,  to  the  effect  that  the  German  civil  commander  of  the 
Belgian  province  of  Limberg  had  exacted  a  severe  import  tax  on  foodstuffs  sent  into  that 
province  from  Rotterdam  by  the  American  Commission  for  Relief  in  Belgium.  Immediately 
upon  my  arrival  here  I  sent  for  the  manager  of  the  branch  of  that  commission  which  is  stationed 
in  Rotterdam,  and  learned  from  him  that  the  facts  as  stated  were  correct,  and  that  the  aforesaid 
import  tax  was  still  demanded.  I  therefore  sent  the  enclosed  letter'  to  our  manager,  instruct- 
ing him  to  discontinue  shipments  into  the  Belgian  province  of  Limburg  until  the  tax  was 
removed,  and  a  promise  made  by  the  German  civil  commander  to  refund  the  money  hitherto 
exacted.  Copies  of  the  letter  have  been  sent  to  our  Minister  at  Brussels  and  to  our  Ambassador 
at  Berlin. 

I  have,  etc., 

Henry  van  Dyke. 


File  No.  855.48/131. 

Minister  WhitlocTc  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Brussels,  January  2,  1915. 
I  have  received  to-day  assurances  from  Baron  von  Bissing,  German  Governor  General  in 
Belgium,  that  orders  have  been  given  forbidding  all  further  requisition  of  foodstuffs  of  whatever 
sort  in  Belgian  territory  occupied  by  German  troops,  and  that  the  protection  thus  afforded  covers 
cattle  and  then-  food  as  well.  He  will  give  any  reiterated  assurances  that  we  may  desire  on 
any  occasion  that  foodstuffs  wiU  not  be  requisitioned,  and  that  we  may  establish  and  maintain 
any  kind  of  control  that  we  may  see  fit  to  adopt  in  connection  with  our  relief  work  for  the  civil 
population.     Similar  assurances  were  given  to  my  Spanish  colleague. 

Whitlock. 


File  No.  855.48/142. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Ao.  399.]  American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  Jamiary  2,  1915. 
Sir:  With  reference  to  my  despatch  No.  376,  dated  December  28,  1914,  on  the  subject  of 
the  arrangements  for  supplying  the  popidation  of  Belgium  with  food,  I  have  the  honor  to  trans- 
mit to  you  herewith  a  copy  of  an  unofficial  note,  wTitten  by  me  to  His  Excellency  IMr.  Zimmer- 
mann,  Imperial  Undersecretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affau-s^  relative  to  the  deshe  of  the  Belgium 
Relief  Commission  that  the  German  military  authorities  in  Belgium  will  not  make  any  further 
requisitions  of  food  supplies  while  the  international  commissions  are  sending  in  food,  and  of  a 
reply  received  from  the  Undersecretary,  dated  December  31,  1914.  My  telegram  No.  1195,  of 
December  26  last,  informed  you  of  my  action  in  this  matter. 
I  have,  etc., 

James  W.  Gerard. 


>  Not  printed. 


BELGIAN   BELIEF,  103 

[Inclosuie  1.) 
Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Undersecretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

F.  O.  No.  1574.]  American  Embassy,  Btrlin,  Decanter  28,  1914. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  After  my  rail  on  you  last  Saturday,  on  which  occasion  I  was  not  acting  ofTicially, 
but  as  one  of  the  honorary  chairmen  of  the  Belgian  Relief  Commission,  I  sent  to  my  Government  and  to  the  chairman 
of  the  commission  the  following  telegram: 

Acting  not  officially,  Imt  as  one  of  honorary  chairmen  Belgian  Relief  Commission,  called  to-day  with  Spanish 
Ambassador  and  Netherlands  Minister  on  Undersecretary  of  State  Zimmermann,  who  gladly  and  without  hesitation 
assured  us  that  commanding  general  in  Belgium  will  give  assurances  to  American,  Spanish,  and  Netherlands  Ministers 
in  Belgium  that  German  military  authorities  will  not  make  any  further  renui.sitions  of  food  supplies  in  Belgium  while 
the  international  commissions  are  sending  in  food,  and  for  a  reasonable  time  after  the  last  delivery. 

There  is,  however,  another  matter  in  which  the  Belgian  Relief  Commission  required  the  assurance  of  the  German 
Government.  Supplies  are  being  sent  to  Belgium  in  British  ships.  These  ships  fly  the  flag  of  the  commission,  and 
carry  nothing  but  the.se  supplies  for  Belgium.  Will  the  Imperial  Government  not  give  a  public  assurance  that  these 
boats  will  not  only  not  be  interfered  with  on  the  voyage  to  Belgium,  but  that  there  will  be  no  Interference  with  these 
ships  on  their  return  to  British  ports,  so  long  as  they  return  direct  to  such  ports  and  sail  under  the  flag  of  the 
commission? 

I  have,  etc., 

Jajues  W.  Gerard. 


[Inclosure  2— Tran.slation.] 
TJie  Undersecretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

No.  11  W  K.  Be.  34.'i.     107002.]  P'oreign  Office,  Berlin,  December  .U,  1914. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  inform  His  Excellency  Mr.  Gerard,  Ambassador  of  the  United  States  of  .Vmerica, 
with  reference  to  the  esteemed  note  of  the  2.Sth  instant,  that  the  Imperial  Governor  General  in  Belgium  will  issue 
without  delay  an  order  prohiliiting  all  the  troops  under  his  command  from  requisitioning  food  or  forage  of  any  kind 
whatsoever  which  would  require  to  be  replaced  by  importations  by  the  American  committee  for  Belgian  relief.  The 
Governor  General  will  in  addition  authorize  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Spanish  Minister  at 
Brussels,  as  honorary  chairmen  of  the  committee,  to  convince  themselves  in  any  way  which  may  to  them  appear 
advisable  that  the  prohibition  is  observed  most  scrupulously. 

With  regard  to  the  desii-e  that  nonneutral  ships  bringing  food  for  Belgium  may  not  be  interfered  with  on  their 
return  to  British  ports,  and  that  assurances  to  this  effect  might  be  given,  reference  is  respectfully  made  to  the  note 
verbalo  of  the  24th  instant,  No.  3  of  which  contains  provisions  dealing  with  this  desire. 
The  undersigned  avails,  etc., 

Zimmermann. 


File  No.  855.48/152.] 

Ilinister  van  Dyl-e  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  1S7.]  American  Legation, 

The  Ilague,  January  4,  1915. 
Sir:  Referring  to  my  despatch  No.  184,  of  December  29,  1914,  I  have  the  honor  to  report 
that  the  import  duty  on  flour  wliich  was  exacted  by  the  German  civil  commander  of  the  Belgian 
Province  of  Limljurg  has  been  removed,  and  the  sum  of  8,000  francs  which  had  been  collected 
under  the  tax  has  been  refunded. 

I  have   therefore   withdrawn    the   jirohibition   issued    to   the   Commission   for   Relief  in 
Belgium,  referred  to  in  the  above-mentioned  despatch,  in  regard  to  shipments  of  foodstuffs 
into  the  Belgian  Province  of  Limburg. 
I  have,  etc., 

Henry  van  Dyke. 


File  No.  855.48/138. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  13,  1915. 
Ascertain  from   Foreign   Office  whether   German  civil   commander  of  Belgian   Province 
Limburg  is  exacting  severe  import  tax  on  foodstuffs  sent  for  relief  of  Belgians  from  Rotterdam 
bj^  American  commission. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  855.48/143. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  January  17,  1915. 
\x\n  Dyke  informs  me  tax  removed  and  money  collected  refunded.     Have  therefore  asked 
Gerinun  Foreign  Office  to  drop  investigations  previously  requested  at  Van  Dyke's  instance. 

Gerard. 


104  BELGIAN    RELIEF. 

File  No.  855. 48/138. 

Tlie  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  van  DyJce. 

No.  74.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  21,  1915. 
Sir:  Tho  Department  has  received  your  despatcli,  No.  184,  of  December  29,  1914,  with 
refcreiico  to  tho  t:ix  imposed  by  the  German  civil  commander  of  tlic  Belgian   province  ol 
Limburg  on  foodstuffs  sent  into  that  province  from  Rotterdam  by  the  American  Commission 
for  Rehef  in  Belgium. 

This  information  was  telegraphed  to  the  Embassy  at  Berhn  on  January  13,  and  a  reply, 

dated  January  17,  has  been  received  stating  that  you  have  informed  the  Ambassador  that  the 

tax  has  been  removed  and  the  money  collected  refunded.     The  Department  has,  therefore, 

telegraphed  you  to-day  (copy  of  message  enclosed)  '  asking  you  to  confirm  the  facts  and  report. 

I  am,  etc., 

For  the  Secretar}-  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  855.  48/143. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  van  Dyke. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  21,  1915. 
Your  despatch  184,  December  29. 

Department  informed  from  Berlin  tax  removed  and  money  collected  refunded.     Please 
confirm  facts  and  report. 

Bryan 


File  No.  855. 48/168. 

Minister  van  DyTce  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  195.]  American  Legation, 

The  Hague,  January  22,  1915. 
Sir:  Referring  to  your  cablegram  No.  81,  of  January  21,  I  liave  to-day  sent  you  the 
following  reply  by  cable: 

I  confirm  facts.     Report  follows. 

Herewith  I  have  the  honor  to  make  the  report  for  which  you  have  asked. 

According  to  my  despatch  No.  184,  of  December  29,  1914,  I  sent  the  letter  which  was 
enclosed  with  that  despatch  to  Captain  Lucey,  manager  of  the  Rotterdam  branch  of  the  Com- 
mission for  Rehef  in  Belgium,  and  a  copy  of  the  same  to  the  American  Ambassador  at  Berlin, 
enclosing  it  in  a  letter  of  which  I  herewith  send  you  a  copy.  On  December  31  I  received  from 
the  Rotterdam  branch  of  the  Commission  for  Relief  in  Belgium  a  letter  dated  December  29,  of 
which  you  will  find  a  copy  enclosed,  stating  that  "the  matter  of  duty  on  imports  into  the 
province  of  Limberg  has  been  taken  care  of  and  settled." 

On  the  same  day  I  rephed  to  this  letter  as  follows: 

If  effective  instructions  have  been  issued  to  the  German  civil  governor  of  the  province  of  Limburg  in  Belgium, 
that  foodstuffs  shipped  by  our  commission  are  to  enter  free  of  duty,  you  may  resume  shipments  from  the  Netherlands 
into  that  province  at  your  convenience.     Otherwise  not. 

And  on  January  4,  by  the  next  American  mail,  I  sent  you  my  despatch  No.  187,  reporting 
the  facts. 

On  January  8  I  received  a  letter  from  the  American  Ambassador  in  Berlin,  of  which  I  beg 
to  enclose  a  copy,  together  with  a  copy  of  my  reply,^  made  the  same  day. 

I  am  convinced  that  the  imposition  of  the  import  duty  on  flour  by  the  German  civil 
governor  of  the  Belgium  province  of  Limberg,  was  due  entirely  to  a  mistake  on  his  part.  But  it 
was  a  mistake  of  such  nature  that  it  threatened,  if  not  corrected,  to  cast  doubt  upon  the 
absolutely  neutral  character  of  oiir  rehef  work  in  Belgium,  and  thus  to  call  forth  possible 
objections  from  Great  Britain  and  France  on  the  ground  tliat  we  were  contributing  to  tlie 
revenue  of  a  belhgcrent  power. 
I  have,  etc., 

Henrt  van  Dyke. 


'  Supra.  » Not  printed. 


BELGIAN    RELIEF.  105 

^  llnclnsure.l 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  Minister  van  Dyke. 

American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  Januari/  6.  1915. 
My  Dear  Colleague:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  2()th  ultimo  re<;ar(iing 
the  reported  action  of  the  German  civil  commander  of  the  Province  of  Limburg  in  imposing  an  import  duty  on  flour 
shipped  into  Belgium  via  Rotterdam  by  the  American  Commission  for  Relief  in  Belgium.  I  have  at  once  informed  the 
Imperial  German  Government  of  the  facta  and  have  requested  that  this  official  be  directed  to  desist  from  imposing 
this  tax  and  to  refund  the  sums  already  collected  in  this  manner.  In  view  of  the  reiterated  assurances,  both  written 
and  oral,  which  I  have  received  from  the  (Jerman  Government  of  ita  sympathy  with  this  movement  for  relief  in  Belgium, 
I  am  persua<led  that  this  action  of  the  civil  commander  of  the  Province  of  Limburg  results  from  misapprehension  on 
his  part  regarding  tlio  facta  of  the  case  and  is  not  in  accord  with  the  sentiments  entertained  by  his  Government,  and 
that  I  feel  confident  orders  will  promptly  be  issued  to  him  in  the  desired  sense. 
I  am,  etc., 

James  W.  Gerard. 


File  No.  855.48/169. 

Minister  van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  106.]  American  Legation, 

The  Hague,  January  22,  1915. 

Sir:  In  connection  with  the  work  of  tho  Commission  for  Relief  in  Belgium,  I  have  the 
honor  to  report  that  the  Netherlands  Government  has  granted  free  use  of  the  Government 
railwaj-s  for  the  transportation  of  relief  supplies  to  the  Belgian  border,  and  free  use  of  the 
Netherlands  Postal  and  Telegraphic  Service  for  the  transmission  of  the  letters  and  telegrams 
of  tho  commission.  I  report  this  as  indicating  the  Netherlands  Government's  willingness  to 
assist  in  every  possible  way  with  the  work  which  the  commission  is  doing. 

I  have  also  requested  the  Foreign  Office  here  to  designate  two  Netherlands  citizens  who 
might  bo  employed  in  the  office  of  the  Rotterdam  branch  of  the  commission,  in  order  to  secure 
a  full  understanding  and  cooperation  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch  authorities  with  the  details  of 
the  commission's  work.     This  has  been  done. 

The  Netherlands  Government  has  also  granted  an  exemption  from  the  payment  of  import 
duty,  and  from  the  giving  of  surety  for  the  twelve  motor  cars  employed  by  the  commission  in 
service  between  Holland  and  Belgium,  and  vice  versa. 
I  have,  etc., 

Henry  van  Dyke. 


FUe  No.  855.48/182. 

Minister  Whitloclc  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  34.]  American  Legation, 

Brusseh,  January  26,  1915. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  inclosed  copy  '  and  translation  of  a  note  received 
from  the  German  civil  authorities  at  Brus.sels  giving  me  the  assurance  of  the  Governor  General 
that  foodstuffs  imported  for  the  region  of  Givet  and  Fumay,  in  that  part  of  France  upon  the 
Belgian  border  as  far  as  the  Meuse,  wiU  be  exempt  from  requisition. 

After  investigating  conditions  in  this  district,  the  representatives  of  the  Rockefeller  Foun- 
dation who  have  recently  been  here,  have  agreed  to  furnish  the  foodstuffs  for  this  district  on 
condition  of  their  being  transported  thither  by  the  Commission  for  ReUef  in  Belgium. 

I  have,  etc.. 

Brand  Whitlock. 


File  No.  855.48/174. 


Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 


No.  4.").]  American  Legation, 

Brussels,  January  28,  1915. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  copies  and  translation  of  correspondence  •  con- 
cerning tho  collection  of  customs  duties  on  foodstuffs  consigned  to  me  for  distribution  to  the 
civil  population  of  Belgiiim. 

As  will  bo  seen  from  this  correspondence  the  matter  has  been  satisfactorily  adjusted. 

I  have,  etc.. 

Brand  Whitlock. 


1  Kot  printed. 


106  BELGIAN  HELIBF. 

File  No.  855.48/175. 

Minister  WJiitlocIc  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  46.]  American  Legation, 

Brussels,  January  28,  1915. 

Sir:  Referring  to  previous  correspondence  in  regard  to  exception  from  requisition  h}' 

mililarv  authorities  of  foodstuffs  in  Belgium,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  enclosed  copies  and 

translations '  of  a  communication  received  from  tlio  German  military  authorities  in  Brussels, 

stating  that  although  the  agreement  relative  to  the  suspension  of  requisitions  did  not  state  that 

exception  was  made  of  the  city  of  Antwerp,  such  was,  however,  the  intention  of  the  Government. 

I  have,  etc., 

Brand  Whitlock. 


File  No.  855.48/176. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  47.]  American  Legation, 

Brussels,  January  28,  1915. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  copies  and  translation  of  a  letter  from  the  German 

military  authorities  informing  me  that  cattle  and  their  food  will  hereafter  be  exempt  from  miU- 

tary  requisition  when  imported  by  the  Comit6  National  de  Secours  et  d' Alimentation. 

I  have,  etc., 

Brand  Whitlock. 


[Inclosure — Translation.) 
The  Governor  General  in  Belgium  to  Minister  Whitlock. 

Adshnistration  Heabquartebs,  Brussels,  Janvary  13, 1915. 

I  have  the  honor  to  infonn  Your  Excellency  that  the  Governor  General  in  a  decision  given  on  the  5th  of  this  month 
has  exempted  from  military'  requisition  not  only  foodstuffs  imported  by  the  Comit6  National  de  Secours  et  d'Alimcn- 
tation  into  Belgium  from  abroad  for  the  civil  population,  but  has  extended  this  measure  to  food  necessary  for  bea^  ti 
and  cattle  imported  by  the  committee. 

Furthermore,  as  a  consequence  of  the  attached  order  issued  December  26,  by  the  Governor  General  certain  classes 
of  animals  are  protected  against  military  requisition. 

In  this  manner  many  of  the  wishes  expressed  by  the  National  Committee's  agricultural  section  are  met. 

I  have,  etc., 

D.  vo.v  Sandt. 


File  No.  855.48/160. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

New  York,  January  28,  1915. 
With  reference  to  my  note  of  21st  instant,'  I  now  beg  to  state  that  the  German  Government 
gives  fonnal  assurance  that  foodstuffs  imported  from  the  United  States  will  not  be  used  by  the 
Government  for  the  military  or  naval  authorities  and  will  not  reach  any  contractors  of  the 
Government.  The  German  Government  guarantees  that  it  will  not  interfere  with  the  distri- 
bution of  such  foodstuffs  by  the  American  importers  to  the  civilian  population  exclusively. 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  855.48/192. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  53.]  American  Legation, 

Brussels,  Fehruary  S,  1915. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  for  the  uiformation  of  the  Department,  copies 
and  translation  of  correspondence  relative  to  the  revictualing  of  the  Maubeuge  district,  through 
the  agency  of  the  Commission  for  Kehef  m  Belgium. 

The  necessary  guarantees  of  nonseizure  and  nonrequisition  having  been  granted  by  the 
German  authorities,  the  Maubeuge  region  will  be  administered  as  a  part  of  Belgium  so  far  as 
relief  work  is  concerned. 
I  have,  etc.. 

Brand  Whitlock. 

>  Not  printed. 


i 


i 


BELGIAN    BELIEF.  107 

File  No.  855.48/172. 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

Paris,  Ffhruan/  10,  1915. 
Your  52S,  January  29.'  Foreign  OfTico  has  given  assurance  that  it  will  make  no  objection 
to  shipment  cargo  Argentine  maize  to  Kottcrdara  for  distribution  relief  of  Belgian  and  French 
people  in  territory  controlled  by  the  Germans.  In  consenting  to  this  and  other  similar  shipments 
for  like  purposes  and  c.\-i)ressing  its  sympathy  for  sufferers,  French  Government  reserves  its 
approval  because  of  belief  that  indirectly  in  some  instances  equivalent  amount  foodstuffs  have 
been  sent  out  of  Belgium  to  Germany. 

Sharp. 


File  No.  855.48/176. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  WhiUocTc. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Fehniar]!  18,  1915. 
Sir:  The  Department  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  No.  47  of  January  28, 
transmitting  copies  and  translation  of  correspondence  from  the  German  military  authorities 
relative  to  the  exemption  of  cattle  and  their  food  from  military  requisition  when  imported  by 
the  Comit6  National  de  Secours  et  d'Alimentation. 

In  reply  the  Department  informs  you  that  copies  of  the  correspondence  enclosed  with  your 
despatch  have  been  transmitted  to  the  Committee  of  Mercy  and  to  the  Commission  for  Relief 
in  Belgium,  New  York  City;  also  the  American  Minister  at  The  Hague  and  to  American  Am- 
bassadors at  London  and  Paris. 

I  am,  etc.,  For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  855.48/182. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Whitlock. 

No.  55.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  23,  1915. 

Sir:  The  Department  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  of  January  26,  together 
with  a  copy  of  a  note  received  by  you  from  the  German  civil  authorities,  with  the  assurance  that 
foodstuffs  imported  for  the  region  of  Givet  and  Fumay,  in  that  part  of  France  upon  the  Belgium 
border  as  far  as  the  Meuse,  will  be  exempt  from  requisition. 

The  Department,  in  reply,  informs  you  that  copies  of  your  despatch,  together  with  the 

German  note,  have  been  transmitted  to  the  Committee  of  Mercy,  the  Commission  for  Rehcf  in 

Belgium,  and  The  Rockefeller  Foundation,  New  York  City;  also  to  the  American  Minister  at 

The  Hague  and  the  American  Ambassador  at  London. 

I  am,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  855.48/216. 

Minister  van  Dyke  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  215.]  American  Legation, 

The  Hague,  March  3,  1915. 

Sir:  Supplementing  my  despatch  214  of  March  2,  and  my  telegrams  173  of  February  27,' 
and  178  of  March  2,  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  the  German  Minister  has  called  upon 
me  tliis  afternoon,  bringing  a  memorandum  from  his  Government  in  regard  to  the  ships  of  the 
Commission  for  Relief  in  Belgium.  He  expressed  his  personal  regret  that  the  memorandum  had 
been  so  long  delayed. 

I  have  cabled  the  substance  of  the  memorandum  to  you  and  to  Mr.  Hoover,  the  chairman 
of  the  rehef  commission  in  London.  Herewith  you  will  find  a  copy  of  the  memorandum  in  the 
German  text  with  an  English  translation  attached. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  assurance  covers  the  freedom  of  the  relief  ships,  bearuig  the 
flag  and  markings  of  the  commission,  from  all  molestation  by  German  submarmos  in  the  voyage 
through  the  English  Channel,  and  that  orders  to  this  effect  have  been  issued  by  the  Gorman 
Government.     We  have  thus  obtamed  a  concession  of  distinct  advantage. 


■  Not  printed. 


208  BELGIAN    RELIEF. 

But  the  German  memorandum  expresses  regret  that  safe  conduct  can  not  be  issued  to 
relief  ships  on  their  trai/  to  amlfrmn  Englnnd,  in  view  of  the  existing  mine  danger  in  the  war  zone. 
The  exact  meaning  of  the  reservation  is  not  clear. 
I  have,  etc., 

Henry  van  Dyke, 


[Tnclosure— Translation.) 
The  German  Minister  at  The  Hague  to  Minister  van  Dyke. 

The  Hague,  March  S,  1915. 

MEMORANDUM. 

Naturally  the  Gennan  Government  is  anxious  to  give  every  possible  support  to  the  humanitarian  work  of  the 
relief  commission.  It  will  allow  the  ships  of  the  commission  to  pass  through  the  English  Channel  unmolested,  if  they 
are  recognizable  by  the  usual  signs  (i.  e.  name  painted  on  the  sides  of  the  vessel  in  big  letters,  and  white  flag  with  similar 
designation  in  red  letters)  and  visibly  illuminated  at  night.  German  submarines  have  received  instructions  to  this 
effect.  The  guarantee  is  given  on  condition  that  every  measure  shall  be  adopted  to  exclude  the  misuse  of  the  signs  of 
the  relief  commission.  The  German  Government  will  at  once  communicate  with  the  American  Ambassador  here, 
with  a  \'iew  to  obtaining  from  the  British  Government  a  declaration  that  only  ships  which  are  really  in  the  service  of 
the  relief  commission,  will  be  allowed  to  carry  the  signs  of  that  commission. 

The  German  Government  regrets  that  in  view  of  the  danger  caused  within  the  war  zone  by  mines,  it  is  impossible 
to  issue  safe  conducts  for  the  ships  of  the  relief  commission  for  the  voyage  to  and  from  England. 


File  No.  855.48/207. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  March  10,  1915. 
Sir  Edward  Grey  has  communicated  with  Commission  for  Rehef  in  Belgium  assuring  the 
commission  that  neither  their  flag  nor  their  markings  will  be  used  in  any  way  or  for  any  purpose 
by  any  officer  of  His  Majesty's  Government;  also  stating  that  His  Majesty's  Government  will 
countenance  the  use  of  this  flag  and  these  markings  in  all  cases  where  it  is  used  on  ships  carrying 
goods  of  the  commission  and  will  discount  in  all  other  cases.  Will  you  kindly  communicate 
the  above  assurance  to  the  German  Ambassador  in  Washington. 

Page. 

File  No.  855.48/207. 

Memorandum  to  the  German  Embassy. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  11,  1915. 

The  Secretary  of  State  presents  his  compliments  to  His  Excellency  the  Imperial  German 
Ambassador  and  has  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  copy  of  a  telegram  received  from  the 
American  Ambassador  at  London,  stating  that  the  British  Government  has  given  assurance 
that  no  officer  of  that  Government  will  be  permitted  to  use  the  flag  or  markings  used  hj  the 
Commission  for  Rehef  in  Belgium  on  its  vessels. 

The  Department  also  transmits  herewith  paraphrase  of  a  telegram  received  from  the 
American  Ambassador  with  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  British  Government  toward  the 
work  of  that  commission. 


File  No.  855.48/233. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washingtan,  April  3,  1915. 
For  Relief  Commission.  Department  informed  from  the  Hague  that  commission's  vessel 
Elfland  was  attacked  Sunday,  March  21,  by  German  aeroplane  off  Dutch  coast.  Department 
advised  to-day  that  German  Admiralty  explains  that  markings  of  relief  ship  not  recognizable 
and  suggests  display  commission  markings  flat  on  upper  deck.  Orders  have  been  given  aeroplanes 
and  submarines  respect  all  relief  commission  ships  recognizably  marked. 

Brtan. 


PART  X. 


ATTEMPT  OF  GERMAN  SHIP  ODENWALD  TO  SAIL  WITHOUT  CLEARANCE  PAPERS. 


109 


I 


ATTEMPT  OF  GERMAN  SHIP  ODENWALD  TO  SAIL  WITHOUT  CLEARANCE 

PAPERS. 


Filo  No.  7G3.72111/1923. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
J.  No.  A  2400.]  Gerjian  Embassy, 

WasJdngton,  April  1,  1915. 

Mr.  Secretary  oi.^  State:  On  the  18th  of  last  month  the  German  steamer  OdenwaU 
lying  in  the  port  of  San  Juan  de  Porto  Rico  apphed  for  clearance  for  Hamburg.  The  collector 
of  customs  then  declared  that  he  had  to  inquire  of  Washington  whether  the  steamer  could  be 
cleared.  On  the  19th  the  steamer  was  subjected  to  a  thorough  search,  alleged  to  have  been 
ordered  from  Washington.  The  search,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  collector  of  customs, 
proved  satisfactory  in  every  respect.  The  ship's  cargo  consisted  of  1,500  tons  of  coal  and  pro- 
visions. On  the  20th  of  March  the  same  official  again  conducted  another  strict  inspection. 
Clearance  papers  were  nevertheless  again  refused  as  they  had  been  the  day  before  on  the  plea 
that  no  answer  had  yet  come  from  Washington.  The  collector  of  customs  urged  by  the  agent 
of  the  Hamburg-American  Line  promised,  however,  to  send  an  ui^ent  telegram  that  night  to 
Washington. 

Again  on  the  next  da}'  (March  21)  the  ship's  captain  waited  in  vain  for  a  final  decision. 
Thus  he  decided  to  put  to  sea  without  clearance  papers.  The  captain,  so  he  asserts,  found 
himself  in  a  critical  situation  as  further  dehi}'  made  the  danger  of  enemy  cruisers  gathering 
worse  every  day.     With  that  situation  he  tried  to  deal  fairly  in  taking  the  course  he  did. 

Just  before  passing  Buoys  H  C  and  Co  the  ship  met  with  a  brisk  machine-gun  fire  from 
Morro  Castle.  A  few  minutes  later  a  sohd  cannon  shot  struck  the  water  a  short  distance  in 
front  of  the  ship's  bow,  raising  a  column  of  water  from  10  to  12  feet  high.  The  engine  was 
immediately  stopped  and  backed  at  fuU  speed.  The  forward  motion  of  the  ship  ceased  at  once 
in  spite  of  which  she  was  fired  upon  about  three  minutes  longer;  marks  of  the  bullets  can  be 
plainly  seen  in  various  places  of  the  ship  and  hull.  It  was  only  through  luck  that  no  human  life 
was  lost  in  that  onslaught. 

A  few  affidavits  '  fully  describing  the  occurrence  are  respectfully  enclosed  with  a  request 
that  they  be  returned. 

I  have  the  honor  to  beg  Your  Excellency  kindly  to  let  me  know  why  her  papers  were  not 

(k^livered  to  the  Odemnnld  tliough  in  the  opinion  of  the  liarbor  officials  after  two  tliorough 

searclies  of  the  sliip  they  liad  no  ground  upon  which  to  refuse  the  said  papers.     Finally,  I  am 

unable  to  conceal  from  Your  Excellency  that  the  reckless  action  of  the  harbor  authorities  in 

opening  fire  on  the  steamer  without  warning  does  not  seem  to  me  to  have  been  justified  by  the 

circumstances  of  the  case.     It  could  hardly  be  the  intention  of  the  American  Government  to 

endanger,  without  imperative  cause,  the  lives  of  a  ship's  crew  for  the  mere  sake  of  insuring 

orderly  traffic  in  the  harbor. 

Accept,  etc., 

J.  Bernstorff. 


File  No.  7G:!.72111/1923. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

WasJiington,  May  S,  1915. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's  note  of 
April  1  last  in  relation  to  the  refusal  of  the  United  States  collector  of  customs  at  San  Juan, 
Porto  Rico,  to  clear  the  German  steamer  Odenwald  for  Hamburg  with  a  cargo  of  1,500  tons  of 
coal  and  provisions.  Your  Excellency  reviews  certain  circumstances  connected  with  this 
incident  and  states  that  after  two  thorough  searches  of  the  vessel,  application  for  clearance 
was  denied  by  the  collector  on  the  plea  that  he  had  as  yet  received  no  instructions  from  Wash- 
ington authorizing  clearance  and  that  the  captain  finally  decided  to  put  to  sea  without  clearance 
«  papers,  as  further  delay  would  cause  increased  danger  from  enemy  cruisers  which  were  gathering 
off  the  port. 

*  ITot  printed, 

lU 


112  CASE    OF   THE    ODEXWALD. 

Your  Exrollcricy  further  states  that  as  the  ship  was  leaving  the  harbor  on  the  afternoon 
of  Sunday,  March  21,  slio  "mot  with  a  brisk  machine-gun  fire  from  Morro  Castle.  A  few 
minutes  later  a  sohd  cannon  shot  struck  the  water  a  short  distance  in  front  of  the  ship's  bow, 
raising  a  column  of  water  from  ten  to  twelve  feet  high.  The  engine  was  immediately  stopped 
and  backed  at  full  speed.  The  forward  motion  of  the  ship  ceased  at  once,  in  spite  of  which 
she  was  fired  upon  about  three  minutes  longer.  Marks  of  the  bullets  can  be  plainly  seen  in 
various  places  of  the  ship  and  hull.  It  was  only  through  luck  that  no  himian  life  was  lost 
in  that  onslaught." 

The  foregoing  statements  are  based  on  affidavits  by  the  German  Consul  in  Porto  Rico,  the 
captain  of  the  OdenwaU,  the  first  ofEcor,  the  third  officer,  and  the  chief  engineer,  which  you 
enclosed. 

Your  Excellency  requests  to  be  advised  as  to  why  the  Odenwald's  clearance  papers  were 
refused,  though  in  the  opinion  of  the  harbor  officials,  after  two  thorough  inspections  of  the 
vessel,  there  was  no  ground  upon  which  to  decline  to  issue  the  papers,  and  Your  Excellency 
declares  that  "the  reckless  action  of  the  harbor  authorities  in  opening  fire  on  the  steamer 
without  warning"  docs  not  seem  to  you  to  have  been  "justified  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  as  it  could  hardly  be  the  intention  of  the  American  Government  to  endanger,  without 
imperative  cause,  the  hves  of  a  ship's  crew  for  the  mere  sake  of  insuring  orderly  traffic  in  the 
harbor." 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  upon  the  report  to  this  Government  by  the  author- 
ities at  San  Juan  of  certain  circumstances  surrounding  the  preparation  of  the  Odenwald  for  sea 
an  investigation  was  immediately  instituted.  Until  the  investigation  was  concluded  and  acted 
upon  at  Washington,  the  authorities  at  San  Juan  were  instructed  to  decline  to  issue  clearance 
papers  to  the  Odenwald.  WhUe  this  investigation  was  pending,  and  while  the  collector  of 
customs  at  San  Juan  was  acting  under  these  instructions,  the  captain  of  the  Odenwald  reached 
the  determination  that  he  would  depart  without  authorized  clearance  and  in  open  violation  of 
the  customs  laws  of  the  United  States.  Circumstances,  which  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to 
relate  here,  have  shown  that  the  suspicions  as  to  the  hona  fides  of  the  apphcation  for  clearance, 
which  had  been  aroused  by  the  preparations  for  saiUng  by  the  officers  of  the  Odenwald,  acting 
in  conjunction  with  the  officers  of  the  German  steamer  President,  lying  in  the  same  harbor, 
were  weU  foxinded,  and  that  this  Government  and  its  officers  at  San  Juan  were  justified  in  the 
course  which  they  took  in  deferring  the  clearance  of  the  Odenwald.  Irrespective  of  the  sub- 
stantial grounds  for  the  suspicions  of  the  port  officials  at  San  Juan,  the  fact  remains  that  the 
OdenicaM  in  her  endeavor  to  leave  port  on  March  21  last  without  papers  committed  a  willful 
breach  of  the  navigation  laws  of  the  United  States,  because  of  which  judicial  proceedings  have 
been  brought  by  the  United  States  against  the  vessel  and  the  persons  concerned  in  her  illegal 
conduct  which  made  it  necessary  for  the  United  States  authorities  to  emploj'  force  to  prevent 
her  unauthorized  departure  on  a  mission  which  this  Government  felt  at  the  time  might  con- 
stitute a  breach  of  the  neutrahty  of  the  United  States  and  result  in  a  possible  claim  for  lack 
of  due  dUigence  on  the  part  of  this  Government  in  performing  its  neutral  duties. 

As  to  the  assertion  that  the  reckless  action  of  the  port  authorities  in  their  exercise  of  force 
endangered  human  lives  on  board  the  Odenwald,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  Your  Excellency 
that  this  Government  has  had  instituted  a  thorough  and  searching  investigation  into  the  circum- 
stances of  the  attempted  saihng  and  arrest  of  the  Odenwald  on  ^larch  21.  The  result  of  this 
investigation,  which  is  supported  by  the  statements  and  affidavits  of  the  officers  of  the  customs, 
as  well  as  of  the  military  officers  in  charge  of  the  defenses  of  the  port,  estabhsh  the  following  facts: 

On  March  19,  at  a  conference  between  the  collector  of  customs,  Col.  Biu-nham,  United  States 
Army,  the  German  consul,  the  captain  of  the  Odenwald,  and  others,  the  captain  of  the  vesstl 
was  informed  by  Col.  Burnham  that  the  latter  would  use  whatever  force  was  necessary  in  order 
to  prevent  the  Odenwald  from  leaving  port  -witliout  the  necessary  customhouse  clearance  and 
that  he  would  go  to  the  length  of  using  the  guns  of  his  command  in  the  forts  for  this  purpose. 

On  March  20,  at  another  conference  between  the  same  persons,  a  similar  statement  was 
made  to  the  captain  of  the  Odenwald,  and  it  was  arranged  to  place  an  armed  partv  on  board 
the  vessel,  unless  the  captain,  the  vessel's  agents,  and  the  German  consul  would  give  assurances 
that  no  attempt  would  bo  made  to  leave  without  proper  papers.  Promises  were  given  not  to 
leave  during  the  night  of  March  20-2 1 .  Nevertheless,  it  was  discovered  in  the  early  morning 
hours  of  the  21st  that  officers  from  the  German  steamer  President  had  boarded  the  Odenwald  and 
that  the  machinery  of  the  Odenwald  was  being  put  in  motion.  The  port  authorities  thereupon 
again  notified  the  chief  officer  of  the  Odenwald  not  to  depart  without  clearance  papei-s,  warning 
him  that  the  vessel  would  be  closely  watched  and  would  be  stopped  b}'  force  if  necessary. 

On  March  21,  at  about  3  p.  m.,  the  Odenwald  raised  anchor  and  started  her  engines.  The 
customs  officer  on  board  the  vessel  at  the  time  was  told  by  the  captain  that  if  he  desired  to 
go  ashore  he  could  take  the  sail  boat  of  the  steamer  President,  which  was  at  the  gangway.    The 


I 


CASE    OF    THE    ODENWALD.  113 

Odenwald  had  moved  ahead  about  5  lengths  when  the  customs  officer  notified  the  captain  that 
the  vessel  could  not  leave  port  without  clearance  papers.  Notwithstiui(lin<^  this  notice  the 
vessel  continued  in  motion,  and  the  officer  was  under  the  necessity  of  leaving  the  ship  while 
she  was  under  weigh. 

As  she  psussed  San  Augustin  Bastion,  500  feet  from  Morro  Castle,  Capt.  Wood,  United 
States  Army,  who  was  there  stationed  with  a  machine  gun,  hailed  the  vessel  several  times  and 
ordered  her  to  stop,  in  circumstances  which  made  it  impossible  for  the  officers  of  the  vessel 
not  to  have  heard  tha  order.  The  Odenwald  nevertheless  continued  on  her  course,  whereupon 
about  7o  shots  were  fired  from  the  machine  gun  mounted  on  the  bastion.  These  shots  were 
aimed  and  fell  a  considerable  distance  in  front  and  short  of  the  Odenwald.  In  order  not  to 
endanger  craft  which  appeared  ahead  of  the  Odenwald  as  she  proceeded,  15  shots  were  fired 
from  the  machine  gun,  which  fell  off  the  stern  of  the  vessel.  Although  these  were  small  sohd 
shots,  they  were  used  as  a  warning,  because  it  is  not  possible  to  use  blank  cartridges  in  a  machine 
gun.  The  machine  gun  was  not  aimed  at  the  Odenwald,  nor  did  any  of  the  shots  strike  the 
vessel.  Any  marks  on  the  Odenwald' s  hull,  wliich  is  old  and  scarred  through  many  months  of 
sea  service,  were  made  by  other  causes  than  by  machine-gun  bullets  striking  the  vessel,  according 
to  the  proofs  laid  before  this  Government. 

The  Odenwald  did  not  haed  this  warning  or  slacken  her  speed.  Thereupon  a  4.7-inch 
gun  on  the  Morro  Castle  was  aimed  and  fired  under  the  personal  direction  of  Col.  Burnham. 
The  shot  struck  at  least  300  yards  in  front  of  the  Odenwald  and  short  of  her  projected  course. 
The  vessel  then  stopped  and  was  taken  back  to  her  anchorage  under  the  direction  of  a  pUot. 
No  machine-gun  shots  could  have  been  fired  from  Morro  Castle,  as  no  machme  guns  are  mounted 
at  that  fort. 

It  will  be  observed  that  six  distinct  warnings  were  given  to  the  captain  of  the  Odenwald 
that  force  woidd  be  used  in  case  he  attempted  to  leave  the  harbor  without  the  clearance  papers 
required  by  law,  namely,  at  the  conferences  on  March  19  and  March  20,  twice  by  the  customs 
officers  on  board  the  vessel  on  March  21,  by  the  orders  of  Capt.  Wood  from  the  bastion,  and 
by  the  shots  from  his  machine  gun.  None  of  these  warnings  was  heeded  by  the  captain,  who 
persisted  in  his  determination  to  leave  port  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  until 
the  warning  shot  from  Morro  Castle  induced  him  to  obey  the  regulations  of  the  port. 

Your  Excellency  will  perceive  from  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts  that  the  United  States 
authorities  at  San  Juan  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  avoided  any  act  endangering  the 
safety  of  the  vessel  and  the  lives  of  the  persons  on  board  and  exercised  no  greater  force  than 
was  necessary  to  prevent  the  illegal  departure  of  the  Odenwald  from  tlie  port  of  San  Juan. 

I  have  the  honor,  in  accordance  with  Your  Excellency's  request,  to  return  herewith  the 
affidavits  transmitted  with  your  note  under  acknowledgment. 
Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryax. 

4556°— 15 8 


i 


PART  XI. 


DETENTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  MERCHANT  SHIP  SEGURANCA. 


115 


DETENTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  MERCHANT  SHIP  SEGURANCA. 

File  No.  341.115In84/13. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  77.  Page. 

(Tel^ram—Paraphraee— Extract.] 

Department  of  State, 
^Yas'h{ngton,  April  9,  1915. 
Your  1889,  6th. 

Ambassador  Pago  is  instructed  to  inform  the  Foreign  Office  that  this  Government,  on 
behalf  of  the  owners  of  the  Seguranca,  objects  to  its  detention,  as  the  shipper's  manifest  shows 
that  the  entire  cargo  was  consigned  to  named  consignees  in  Holland  and  is  accompanied  by  a 
certificate  of  the  British  Consul  General  at  New  York;  the  loading  of  the  vessel  having,  more- 
over, been  supervised  by  said  Consul  General's  mspcctor,  and  the  vessel  containing  no  cargo 
except  what  is  specified  in  the  manifest.  The  Ambassador  is  further  instructed  to  advise  the 
Foreign  Office  that  this  Government  will  support  claims  of  owners  of  the  vessel  and  cargo  for 
damages  for  detention,  as  this  Government  does  not  admit  the  right  of  British  Government 
to  require  that  this  cargo  be  reconsigncd  to  the  Netherlands  Oversea  Trust. 


File  No.  341.115In84/13. 

Ambassador  W.  77.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  April  28,  1915. 
Your  1471,  26th. 
Replying  to  my  representations  of  17th  instant  Foreign  Office  advises  me  as  follows: 

The  steamship  Seguranca  was  allowed  to  proceed  on  April  22,  all  the  consigneea  having  agreed  to  receive  their 
goods  through  the  Netherlands  Oversea  Trust. 

Wliile  nis  Majesty's  Government  do  not  "reqiiire"  cargoes  to  be  consigned  to  the  Netherlands  Oversea  Trust, 
they  do  accept  a  consignment  in  tliat  form  as  proof  tliat  the  cargo  is  intended  for  bonajide  consumption  in  Holland, 
and  they  find  by  experience  tliat  no  objection  to  that  coiiwe  is  raised  by  reputable  sliippers  and  consignees. 

As  this  practice  has  greatly  facilitated  and  expedited  the  release  of  vessels  bound  for  Dutch  ports  when  brought 
in  or  calling  for  examination,  it  is  hoped  that  the  United  States  Government  will  not  do  anything  to  interfere  with  its 
smooth  working  in  the  future. 

Page. 


File  No.  341.115In84/13. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  6,  1915. 
Ambassador  Page  is  instructed  to  inform  the  Foreign  Office  that  the  owners  of  the  Seguranca 
advise  the  Department  that  tliough  the  British  Consul  General  supervised  the  loading  of  the 
vessel,  he  failed  to  advise  them  of  the  practice  of  consigning  shipments  to  the  Netherlands 
Oversea  Trust,  and  that  if  the  British  Government  desires  the  practice  followed  as  a  matter  of 
convenience,  it  should  bring  the  same  to  the  knowledge  of  shippers. 

Ambassador  Page  is  also  instructed  to  inform  the  Foreign  Office  that  the  United  States 
Government  does  not  object  to  the  consignment  of  American  shipments  to  the  Netherlands 
Oversea  Trust,  provided  the  plan  bo  voluntarily  acquiesced  in  by  the  shippers,  but  that  it  does 
object  to  the  holding  up  by  British  Government  of  noncontraband  cargoes  until  reconsigncd 
to  Netherlands  Oversea  Trust,  and  maintains  also  that  shipments  consigned  to  other  consignees 
in  Holland  have  the  same  legal  status  as  those  consigned  to  Netherlands  Oversea  Trust;  that 
the  United  States  Government  finds  no  legal  justification  for  the  detention  of  noncontraband 
cargoes  and  that  in  the  circumstances  of  this  case  the  burden  of  proof  is  not  on  shipper  to  estab- 
hsh  the  noncontraband  character,  but  is  on  the  British  Government  to  show  contraband  charac- 
ter of  shipments 

117 


PART  XII. 


DETENTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SHIP  WICO. 


iia 


DETENTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SHIP  WICO. 

File  No.  300.115/2627. 

TJie  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page, 
[Telegram — Paraphraao.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  20,  1915. 
Department  of  State  is  in  receipt  of  a  telegram  from  the  American  Minister  at  Stockholm, 
as  follows : 

His  Britannic  Majesty's  Legation  has  the  honor  to  inform  the  Koyal  Swedish  Ministrj'  for  Foreign  Affairs  that 
the  American  Steamsliip  HVco  has  arrived  in  the  United  Kingdom  with  a  full  cargo  of  oil  for  Krooks  Petroleum  and 
Oil  Company,  Stockholm.  In  view  of  the  recent  seizure  by  German  men  of  war  off  Falsterbo  of  the  Steamship  Bryssel 
and  her  cargo  of  oil  His  Majesty's  Government  require  to  have  complete  assurances  that  this  vessel  will  not  share  the 
same  fate  lieforo  they  can  allow  her  to  proceed  to  destination.  His  Brittanic  Majesty's  Legation  would  therefore  be 
much  obliged  to  be  furnished  with  such  assurances  for  immediate  communication  to  the  Foreign  OfBce. 

Ambassador  Page  is  instructed  to  inquire  of  the  British  Government  as  to  whether  the 
vessel  is  held  for  reasons  stated  in  the  above  telegram,  and  to  state  that,  in  that  case,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  considers  that  the  vessel  should  be  released  at  once,  in  view  of 
the  evident  fact  that  the  United  States  Government  can  not  admit  the  right  of  the  British 
Government  to  detain  the  vessel  without  any  evidence  shomng  that  her  cargo  has  an  illegal 
destination,  and  before  a  reply  has  been  received  to  demand  made  on  a  nonbelligerent  country, 
which  such  country  is  evidently  unable  to  comply  with,  viz,  that  it  give  assurances  that  the 
ship  while  on  her  way  will  not  be  held  up  by  the  forces  of  another  belligerent  Government. 


File  No.  300.115/2627. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Morris. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  20,  1915. 
Mr.  Bryan  informs  Mr.  Morris  that  his  telegram  under  date  of  March  18,  4  p.  jn.,  to  the 
Department,  has  been  communicated  to  Ambassador  Page.     Minister  Morris  is  also  advised 
that  Ambassador  Page  has  been  instructed  to  make  representations  to  the  British  Goverimient 
for  the  release  of  the  steamer  ^Yico. 


File  No.  341.115St2/114. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  EnreAssY, 
London,  April  S,  1915. 
Your  1296,  March  20,  regarding  Wico. 

Foreign  Office  replies  to  my  representations  in  the  premises  stating  that  it  has  been  decided 
in  this  case  to  pernut  tliis  vessel  to  proceed  to  her  destination,  and  instructions  in  that  sense 
have  already  been  issued.  It  is  ftirther  stated  that  it  is  desu-ed  to  point  out  that  British  Gov- 
ernment feels  that  in  event  of  further  cai^oes  going  to  Stockholm  being  seized  by  German 
ships,  the  whole  question  of  perjnittmg  oil  cargoes  to  proceed  to  that  destination  wUl  have  to 
be  seriously  reconsidered. 

i  AGE. 

File  No.  341.115St2/114. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  II.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  12,  1915. 
You  will  say  to  British  Government,  in  replying  to  its  statement  regarding  release  steamer 
Wico,  that  this  Government  considers  that  any  seizure  of  American  cargoes  which  might  be 
made  by  the  German  authorities  would  be  a  matter  which  should  be  adjusted  between  the 

121 


122  CASE   OF    THE   WICO. 

Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  German  Government,  and  further  say  that  the 

Government  of  the  United  States  does  not  perceive  that  any  such  action  on  the  part  of  the 

German  authorities  could  afford  justification  for  seizures  of  American  cargoes  by  the  British 

authorities. 

Bryan. 


\ 


Filo  No.  341.115St2/137. 


Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 


No.  1412.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  May  18,  1915. 
Sir:  Adverting  to  the  Department's  cablegram  No.  1408  of  April  12,  in  regard  to  the 
detention  of  the  S.  S.  Wico  by  the  British  authorities,  and  instructing  me  to  acquaint  the 
British  Government  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  considered  that  any  question 
arising  out  of  the  seizure  of  American  cargoes  by  the  German  authorities  would  be  a  matter 
for  adjustment  between  the  two  Governments,  and  could  not  afford  justification  for  the 
seizure  of  American  cargoes  by  the  British  authorities,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith, 
for  the  information  of  the  Department,  a  copy  of  a  note,  under  date  of  May  16,  wlaich  I  have 
received  from  the  Foreign  Office  in  reply  to  my  representations  in  the  premises. 

I  have,  etc., 

Walter  Hines  Page. 


[Inclosure.) 

The  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  W.  II.  Page. 

No.  46625/15.  Foreign  OrncE, 

May  16,  1915. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  note  of  the  16th  ultimo,  in  which  Your  Excellency  stated, 
in  connection  with  the  detention  of  the  American  ship  Wico,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  considered 
that  any  question  arising  out  of  the  seizure  of  American  cargoes  by  the  German  authorities  would  be  a  matter  for  adjust- 
ment between  the  two  Governments,  and  could  not  afford  justilication  for  the  seizure  of  American  cargoes  by  British 
authorities. 

I  regret  that  my  note  of  the  7th  instant  did  not  explain  with  sufficient  clearness  the  attitude  which  His  Majesty's 
Government  feel  constrained  to  adopt  in  the  matter.  They  had  no  intention  of  claiming  the  right  to  interfere  with 
neutral  vessels  on  their  way  to  neutral  ports,  on  the  ground  that  such  vessels  were  liable  to  be  captured  by  enemy 
cruisers.  I  should  have  stated  that  the  recent  seizures  of  a  number  of  such  vessels  and  their  diversion  to  German  ports 
were  effected  in  circumstances  which  left  no  doubt  that  there  was  collusion  between  the  parties  interested  in  the  cargoes 
and  the  German  authorities ' 

The  right  which  His  Majesty's  Government  claim,  and  which  they  feel  confident  will  not  be  questioned  by  the  United 
States  Government,  is  that  neutral  ships  may  be  held  up  in  cases  where  there  are  good  grounds  to  sufspect  that  their 
ostensible  destination  is  not  the  genuine  destination,  and  that  fraudulent  arrangements  have  been  concerted  with  the 
enemy  cruisers  for  delivering  ship  and  caigo  into  their  hands. 
I  have,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

W.  Langlet. 


I 


PART  XIII. 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  WARSHIP  PRINZ  EITEL  FRIEDRICH. 


123 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  WARSHIP  PRINZ  EITEL  FRIEDRICH. 

FileNo.  763.721U/1981. 

TJie  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  18,  1916. 
Excellency:  The  Department  of  State  has  received  from  the  Navy  Department  the  report 
of  the  ])(>iird  of  naval  ofRcera  who  made  an  examuiation  of  H.  M.  S.  Prinz  Eitel  Fiiedrich,  now 
in  tlie  harhor  of  Newport  News,  Va.,  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  the  repairs  necessary  to  put 
the  vosst^l  in  a  thoroughly  seaworthy  condition,  and  from  this  report  it  appears  that  the  time 
required  for  these  repairs  will  he  a  period  of  14  working  days.  The  Government  has  concluded, 
therefore,  that  H.  M.  S.  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich  will  he  allowed  luitil  midnight  of  the  close  of  the 
6th  day  of  April  next  to  complete  her  repairs,  and  that  she  will  he  allowed  24  hours  in  addition, 
or  until  midnight  of  the  7th  day  of  April,  to  leave  the  territorial  waters  of  the  United  States, 
or  failing  this  tliat  she  will  be  under  the  necessity  of  accepting  internment  within  American 
JTuisdiction  during  the  continuance  of  the  wars  in  which  your  comitry  is  now  engaged. 

This  information  has  been  confidentially  conveyed  to  the  Treasury  Department  with  the 
request  that  it  be  transmitted  immediately  to  the  commander  of  H.  M.  S.  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich. 
Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


File  No.  763.72111/1941. 

Memorandum  to  the  British  Embassy. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  29,  1915. 

Tlie  Department  of  State  has  received  the  memorandum,  dated  March  24,  1915,'  from  His 
Britamiic  Majesty's  Embassy,  inviting  attention  to  the  pruiciple  crabotlied  in  Article  XVI  of 
nie  Hague  Convention,  of  1907,  No.  XIH,  paragraph  3,  namely:  that  a  belligerent  wai"ship 
may  not  leave  a  neutral  port  or  roadstead  imtil  24  hours  after  the  departure  of  an  enemy  mer- 
chant ship. 

It  is  pointed  out  that  this  convention  was  signed  by  Great  Britain,  but  not  ratified;  that 
it  was  adhered  to  by  the  United  States;  that  the  principle  referred  to  is  generally  accepted 
(Oppenlieim  Sections  333  and  347) ;  and  that  the  regxdations  issued  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment on  January  31,  1862,  embodied  this  principle  in  sections  2  and  3. 

His  Britannic  Majesty's  Embassy  states  that  it  has  no  doubt  that  this  principle  will  be  taken 
into  consideration  by  the  United  States  authorities  in  regard  to  the  departure  of  the  German 
war  vessel  now  imdergomg  repairs  in  the  port  of  Newport  News,  Va. 

In  reply  the  Department  of  State  informs  His  Britamiic  Majesty's  Embassj'-  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  hiis  given  instructions  that  this  ride  of  mternational  law  be 
observed  by  the  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich  upon  her  departure  from  an  American  port. 


File  No.  763.72111/1986. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 
J.  No.  A  2578.] 

Imperlvl  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  D.  C,  Ajrril  8,  1915. 
Mr.  Secretary  op  State:  I  have  the  honor  to  express  to  Your  Excellency  my  most  sin- 
cere thanks  for  the  accommodatuig  treatment  accorded  H.  M.  S.  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich  during 
her  stay  at  Newport  News.  I  have  been  especially  gratified  to  hear  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  had  taken  far-reaching  safety  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  ship  from 
the  various  menaces  of  an  attack. 

I  venture  therefore  respectfully  to  beg  your  Excellency  kindly  to  convey  this  expression 
of  my  thanks  to  the  Departments  and  officials  concerned.  Neither  shaU  I  fail  to  apprize  my 
Govenunent  of  the  attention  shown  H.  M.  S.  Prinz  Eitel  Friedrich. 

Accept,  etc. 

J.  Bernstorff. 

1  Xot  printed. 

125 


\ 


I 


PART  XIV. 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  CRUISER  KRONPRINZ  WILHELM. 


127 


I 


I 
I 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  CRUISER  KRONPRINZ  WILHELM. 

File  No.  763.72111/1976. 

The  German  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 

J.  No.  A  2681.]  Imperial  German  Embassy, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  12,  1915. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  In  continuation  of  my  note  of   tlio  11th  in.stant  ■  I  huvo  the 
lionor  to  inform  Your  Excolloncy  that  II.  M.  S.  Kronprinz  WiVielm,  would  like  to  land  at  Ne-\vi3ort 
News  61  persons  belonging  to  the  crews  of  enemy  vessels  sunk  by  her. 

The  ship  further  stands  in  urgent  need  of  repairs  to  restore  licr  seaworthiness  and  has  to 
replenish  her  sujiply  of  coal  and  provisions.  The  comman<ler  has  asked  me  to  prociire  for  liim 
permission  to  imdei^o  the  aforesaid  necessary  repairs  at  the  Newport  News  shipyard,  and 
amiouTiced  that  the  extent  and  time  of  the  repairs  could  oidy  be  made  known  upon  the  com- 
pletion of  the  sTirvey  now  on  foot. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  commander  of  H.  M.  S.  Kronprinz  Wilhelm.,  I  beg 
Yo-ar  Excellency  to  take  the  necessary  measures  and  in  particular  to  allow  the  ship  to  staj^  at 
Newjjort  News  beyond  the  24  houi-s  prescribed  by  law  in  acconhince  with  Article  14  of  the 
'.3th  Convention  of  the  2nd  Conference  of  The  Hague  of  October  18,  1907. 
Accept,  etc.. 

For  the  Imperial  Ambassador: 

Haniel. 


FUe  No.  763.72111/2091. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  April  21,  1915. 
Excellency:  In  reply  to  your  note  of  the  12th  hist  ant  recpiestuig  the  hospitality  of  the 
port  of  Norfolk  for  H.  M.  S.  Kronprinz  Wilhelm,  I  have  the  lionor  to  infonn  you  that  the 
Department  has  received  the  report  of  the  board  of  naval  officers  who  have  made  an  examination 
of  the  cruiser  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  the  repairs  which  the  vessel  may  undergo  in  American 
waters.  From  tliis  report  it  appears  that  the  time  requh-cd  for  repairs  will  consume  a  period 
of  six  working  days,  but  that  the  proposed  repairs  will  not  cover  the  damage  to  the  port  side  of 
the  cruiser  incident  to  the  service  in  wliich  the  vessel  has  been  engaged. 

The  Govermnent  has  concluded,  therefore,  that  H.  M.  S.  Kronprinz  Wilhelm  will  be  allowed 
imtil  miihiight  of  the  close  of  the  29th  day  of  April  next  to  complete  the  proposed  repairs  in  the 
port  of  Norfolk,  and  that  she  wiU  be  allowed  24  hours  in  addition,  or  until  midnight  of  30th 
day  of  Apiil,  to  leave  the  territorial  watei-s  of  the  United  States,  or,  failing  this,  that  she  will 
be  Tinder  the  necessity  of  accepting  intenmient  witliin  American  jm-isdiction  dxiring  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  wars  ui  which  your  country  is  now  engaged. 

It  is  expected  that  in  accordance  with  the  President's  proclamations  of  neutrality  H.  M.  S. 
Kronprinz  Wilhelm  will  not  depart  from  the  port  of  Norfolk  within  24  hours  after  a  vessel  of  an 
opposing  belligerent  shall  have  departed  therefrom. 

Tliis  information  has  been  confidentially  conveyed  to  the  collector  of  customs  at  Norfolk 
for  transmittal  to  the  commander  of  the  Kronprinz  Wilhelm. 
Accept,  etc.. 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 

'  Not  printed. 
4556°— 15 9  129 


ft 


PART  XV. 


DETENTION  OF  AUGUST  PIEPENBRINK. 


131 


I 


DETENTION  OF  AUGUST  PIEPENBRINK. 

File  No.  344d62/16. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Vice  Consul  Bundy} 

[Telegram.] 

Department  op  State, 

Washington,  December  7,  1914. 
It  appears  from  information  received  by  Department  that  Piepenbrink,  waiter  or  steward 
on  Windber,  was  taken  from  that  American  A^essel  while  on  the  high  seas  by  officers  of  French 
cruiser.     His  arrest  and  detention  are  deemed  to  be  without  right  and  you  will  ask  British 
authorities  who  now  detain  him  for  his  release. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  344d62/16. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Sharp.^ 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  7,  191^. 
August  Piepenbrink,  waiter  or  steward  on  American  registered  steamer  Windber  bound  to 
New  York,  was  taken  from  that  vessel  by  officers  of  French  cruiser  Conde,  about  November  1.'5, 
while  on  the  high  seas  some  two  days  out  of  Colon  and  2.50  miles  South  of  Elingston.  Piepen- 
brink is  of  German  birth,  but  had  regularly  filed  declaration  of  intention  to  become  American 
citizen  at  Sacramento,  Cal.,  in  1910.  He  is  now  detained  prisoner  at  Kingston,  Jamaica,  in 
charge  of  British  officials.  Action  of  French  cruiser  in  seizing  Piepenbrink  is  deemed  to  have 
been  without  right,  as  also  his  arrest  and  detention  by  British  authorities.  You  will  ask  French 
Government  for  orders  for  his  release. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  344d62/26. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  January  4,  1915. 
Your  705,  December  7. 

British  Government  answers  tljat  although  August  Piepenbrink  has  declared  intention  of 
becoming  American  citizen  he  appears  from  a  legal  standpoint  to  be  still  a  German  subject  if 
he  has  not  actually  taken  out  letters  of  naturalization  and  that  in  these  circumstances  it  is  not 
possible  for  liim  to  be  released. 

Page. 

File  No.  344dll2P59b. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  2,  1915. 
Your  1395,  January  <,  concerning  detention  of  Piepenbrink.  It  is  imderstood  that  the 
only  reason  assigned  by  British  Government  for  his  detention  is  that,  although  he  has  declared 
liis  intention  to  become  an  American  citizen,  he  has  not  actually  taken  out  letters  of  naturahza- 
tion  and  appears  from  a  legal  standpoint  to  be  a  German  subject.  In  reply  to  this  and  supple- 
menting the  grounds  upon  which  this  Government  objects  to  his  detention  as  set  forth  in  De])iirt- 
ment's  No.  705,  December  7,  inform  British  Government  that  since  he  declared  his  intention 
of  becoming  American  citizen  in  1910,  Piepenbrink  has  been  employed  in  the  .^Vmerican  Mercliaiit 

•  Vice  and  Deputy  Consul  at  Kingston,  Jamaica.  *  Similar  instructirn  to  Eml>i"sy  at  London. 

133 


134  CASE   OF   AUGUST   PIEPENBKINK. 

Marine,  and  call  attention  to  section  2174,  U.  S.  Eevised  Statutes,  which  provides  that  every 
foreign  seaman  enijjloyed  on  board  ^\.rucrican  merchant  vessels  havuig  d(!clared  intention  of 
becoming  a  citizen  "shall,  for  all  purposes  of  protection  as  an  American  citizen,  be  deemed  such, 
after  the  filing  of  his  declaration  of  int<^ntion  to  become  such  citizen."  Also  point  out  that  in<Uv 
pendently  of  any  question  of  Piepen})rink's  American  citizenship,  this  GoA-ernment  insists  that 
his  removal  from  an  American  vessel  on  the  high  seas  was  without  legjil  justification.  The  facts 
show  that  Piepenbrink  was  not  embodied  "in  the  armed  forces  of  the  enemy,"  in  the  sense  of 
the  rule  on  that  subject  in  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  apart  from  the  Declaration  of  London, 
which  this  Government  does  not  recognize  as  in  force,  there  is  no  justification  in  international 
law  for  the  removal  of  an  enemy  subject  from  a  neutral  vessel  on  the  high  seas  bound  to  a 
neutrjil  port,  even  if  lie  could  properly  be  regarded  as  a  nulitary  person.  The  rule  was  stated 
for  Great  Britain  by  Earl  Eussell  in  the  Trent  case  (Moore's  Digest  VII,  772)  as  f oUows : 

If  the  real  terniiiius  of  the  voyage  be  bona  fide  in  a  neutral  territory,  no  EngUsh,  nor,  indeed,  as  Her  Majesty's 
Government  believe,  any  American,  authority  can  be  found  which  has  ever  given  countenance  to  the  doctrine  that 
either  men  or  despatches  can  be  subject,  during  such  a  voyage,  and  on  board  such  a  neutral  vessel,  to  belligerent  cap- 
ture as  contraband  of  war. 

For  these  reasons,  which  you  wOl  urge  upon  the  attention  of  the  British  Government,  you  are 
instructed  to  again  request  that  orders  be  issued  for  Piepenbrink's  immediat*  release. 

Bkyax. 


File  No.  344dll2P59a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  SJiarp. 

[Telegram.] 

DEPARTirEXT   OF   vStATE, 

Washington,  March  2,  1915. 
Your  484,  January  22.  Inform  Foreign  Office  that  this  Government  regards  the  seiziu-e 
of  Piepenbrink  by  the  French  Government  and  his  detention  by  the  British  Government  as 
imjustifiablc,  and  has  to-day  addressed  a  commimication  on  this  subject  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment requesting  his  immediate  release  and  setting  forth  the  groimds  of  objection  to  his  deten- 
tion, which  apply  equally  to  his  seiziu-e,  the  responsibUity  for  which  rests  with  the  French 
Government.  A  copy  of  this  communication  is  appended  for  the  information  of  the  Foreign 
Office,  and  its  attention  should  also  be  called  to  the  rule  stated  by  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  in  a  note  dated  December  3,  1861,  to  the  French  ^Minister  at  Washington,  in  regard  to  the 
Trent  case,  as  follows: 

[Translation.] 

The  destination  of  the  Trent  was  not  a  point  belonging  to  one  of  the  belligerents.  She  was  carrj-ing  her  cargo  and 
her  passengers  to  a  neutral  country,  and,  moreover,  she  had  taken  them  on  in  a  neutral  port.  If  it  were  admissible 
that  under  such  conditions  the  neutral  flag  did  not  completely  cover  the  persons  and  merchandise  which  it  was  trans- 
porting, its  immunity  would  not  longer  be  anything  but  an  empty  word;  at  any  time  the  commerce  and  navigation  of 
third  powers  would  have  to  suffer  from  their  harmless  or  even  indirect  relations  with  one  or  the  other  of  the  belligerents; 
the  latter  would  no  longer  be  entitled  merely  to  require  entire  impartiality  of  a  neutral  and  to  forbid  him  from  inter- 
fering in  any  way  in  the  hostilitiei?,  but  they  would  place  upon  his  freedom  of  commerce  and  na\dgation  restrictions 
the  lawfulness  of  which  modern  international  law  has  refused  to  admit.     (Calvo,  Fifth  Edition  V,  pp.  94-95). 

The  seizure  of  Piepenbrink  by  the  French  Government  was  clearly  contrary  to  the  rule 
thus  announced  by  that  Government. 

The  communication  to  be  presented  to  the  British  Government  is  as  follows : 
"It  is  understood  that  the  only  reason  assigned  by  British  Government  for  Piepenbrink's 
detention  is  that  although  he  has  declared  his  intention  to  become  an  American  citizen,  he  has 
not  actually  taken  out  letters  of  naturalization,  and  appears  from  a  legal  standpomt  to  be  a 
German  subject.  In  reply  to  this  and  supplementing  the  grounds  upon  which  this  Government 
objects  to  his  detention  as  set  forth  in  Department's  No.  70o,  December  7  (which  corresponds 
to  Department's  357,  December  7  to  you),  inform  British  Govormnent  that  since  he  declared 
his  intention  of  becoming  American  citizen  in  1910,  Piepenbrink  has  been  employed  in  the 
American  merchant  marine,  and  Cidl  attention  to  section  2174,  U.  S.  Revised  Statutes,  which 
provides  that  every  foreign  seaman  employed  on  board  American  merchant  vessels  having 
declared  intention  of  becoming  a  citizen,  'shall,  for  all  purposes  of  protection  as  an  ^Vmerican 
citizen,  be  deemed  such,  after  the  fihng  of  his  declaration  of  intention  to  become  such  citizen.' 
Also  point  out  that  independently  of  any  question  of  Piepenbrink's  American  citizenship, 
this  Government  insists  that  his  removal  from  an  American  vessel  on  the  high  seas  was  without 
legal  justification.  The  facts  show  that  Piepenbrink  was  not  embodied  'in  the  armed  forces 
of  the  enemy'  in  the  sense  of  the  rule  on  that  subject  in  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  apart 
from  the  Declaration  of  London,  wliich  this  Government  does  not  recognize  as  in  force,  there  is 
no  justification  in  international  law  for  the  removal  of  an  enemy  subject  from  a  neutral  vessel 


CASE   OF   AUGUST  PIEPENBRINK.  135 

on  the  high  soas  bound  to  a  neutral  port,  even  if  ho  could  properly  bo  regarded  as  a  military 
person.  The  ride  was  stated  for  Great  Britain  by  Earl  KussoU  in  the  Trent  case  (Moore's 
Digest,  VII,  772)  as  follows: 

If  the  real  terminus  of  the  voyage  be  bona  fide  in  a  neutral  territory,  no  English,  nor,  indeed,  as  Her  Majesty's 
Government  believe,  any  American,  ai:tliority  can  be  found  which  has  ever  given  countenance  to  the  doctrine  that 
either  men  or  despatches  can  bo  subject,  during  such  a  voyage,  and  on  board  such  a  neutral  vessel,  to  belligerent 
capture  as  contraband  of  war." 

For  these  reasons,  which  you  will  urge  upon  tho  attention  of  the  British  Government, 
you  are  instructed  to  again  request  that  orders  be  issued  for  Piepenbrink's  inunodiate  release. 

Bbyan. 


File  No.  344dll2P59/2. 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  298.]  American  Embassy, 

Paris,  March  12,  1915. 

Sir:  In  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  Department's  telegraphic  instruction  No.  600 
of  tho  3rd  instant,  relative  to  the  seizure  on  board  tho  American  steamer  Windher  of  August 
Piepcnbrink,  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  the  copy  of  a  note  which  I  handed  to  Mr. 
Dclcasse,  the  French  MuiJster  for  Foreign  Affairs,  on  March  5,  in  conformity  therewith. 

At  the  same  time,  I  stated  to  Mr.  Delcasse  that  the  American  Ambassador  at  London 
had  been  instructed  to  make  representations  to  the  British  Government,  requesting  tho 
immediate  release  of  Piopeubrink. 

The  Minister  replied  that  he  would  give  the  matter  his  urgent  and  early  attention,  examining 
tho  question  in  the  most  friendly  spirit. 

I  have,  etc.,  Wm.  G.  Sharp. 


[Tnclosurc.] 

Ambassador  Sharp  to  the  French  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

Amertcan  Embassy, 

Paris,  March  5,  1915. 

Excellency:  Acting  on  instructions  from  my  Government,  I  had  the  honor  to  address  a  note  to  Your  Excel- 
lency on  Deceml:)er  11,  1914,  regarding  the  seizure  by  the  French  cruiser  Conde  of  August  Piepenljrink,  a  steward  on 
board  the  American  steamer  Windher  bound  from  Colon  to  New  York.  My  Government  considering  tho  removal  of 
this  seaman  from  an  Ameiican  vessel  as  without  right,  I  was  directed  to  request  that  orders  be  given  for  his  release. 

On  January  14  Your  Excellency  replied  that  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  Piepenbrink,  ha\-ing  raised  no  protest  nor 
presented  any  certificate  testifying  to  his  intention  of  becoming  naturalized  as  an  American,  had  been  placed  under 
the  custody  of  the  Governor  of  Kingston  and  that  it  lay  within  the  province  of  that  official  to  decide  the  question  of 
his  liberation. 

My  Government,  to  whom  this  response  was  duly  transmitted,  again  instructs  me  to  inform  Your  Excellency 
that  it  regards  the  seizure  of  Piepenbrink  by  the  French  Government  and  his  detention  by  the  British  Government 
as  unjustified.  A  communication  to  tnis  effect  has  been  addressed  to  the  British  Grovernment,  requesting  his  imme- 
diate release  and  setting  forth  the  grounds  on  which  the  United  States  objects  to  his  detention.  This  objection 
appUes  equally  to  his  seizure,  the  responsibility  for  which  rests  with  the  French  Government. 

For  the  information  of  Your  Excellency,  I  am  instructed  to  inform  you  that  the  communication  to  the  British 
Government  is  in  substance  as  follows: 

It  is  understood  that  the  only  reason  assigned  by  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  for  the  detention  of  Piepen- 
brink is  that,  although  he  had  declared  his  intention  of  becoming  an  American  citizen,  he  had  not  actually  taken 
out  a  certificate  of  natiu-alization,  and,  therefore  apjjeared,  from  a  legal  standpoint,  to  be  a  German  subject.  In  reply 
thereto,  and  supplementing  the  previous  grounds  upon  which  the  American  Government  objects  to  his  detention, 
the  Ambassador  at  London  has  been  instnicted  to  point  out  to  His  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  that  since  Pie- 
penbrink declared  his  intention  of  becoming  an  American  citizen  in  1010,  he  had  been  employed  in  the  American 
merchant  marine  and  therefore  falls  within  the  scope  of  tho  law  which  provides  that  every  alien  seaman  employed 
on  board  American  ships,  having  declared  an  intention  of  becoming  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  "shall,  for  all  pur- 
poses of  protection  as  an  American  citizen,  be  deemed  such,  after  the  filing  of  his  declaration  of  intention  to  become 
such  citizen."     (United  States  Revised  Statutes,  Section  2174.) 

Aside  from  the  question  of  Piepenbrink's  right  to  protection  tmder  this  law,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
is  constrained  to  insist  that  his  removal  from  an  American  vessel  on  the  high  seas  was  without  legal  justification.  The 
facts  show  that  he  was  not  "embodied  in  the  armed  forces  of  the  enemy"  in  the  sense  of  the  rule  on  that  subject  as 
contained  in  the  Declaration  of  London  and,  moreover,  apart  from  this  Declaration,  which  my  Government  does  not 
recognize  as  now  in  force,  there  is  no  justification  in  international  law  for  the  removal  of  an  enemy's  subject  from  a 
neutral  vessel  on  the  high  seas  bound  to  a  neutral  port,  even  if  he  could  properly  be  considered  as  a  military  person. 

The  rule  was  stated  for  Great  Britiiin  liy  Earl  Russell  in  the  TYent  case: 

"If  the  real  terminus  of  the  voyage  be  bona  fide  in  a  neutral  territory,  no  English,  nor  indeed,  as  Her  Majesty's 
Government  believe,  any  American,  authority  can  be  found  which  has  ever  given  countenance  to  the  doctrine  that 
either  men  or  despatches  can  be  subject,  during  such  a  voyage,  and  on  board  such  a  neutral  vessel,  to  belligerent 
capture  as  contraband  of  war."     (Earl  Russell  to  I«rd  Lyons,  January,  1862.) 


136  CASE   OF   AUGUST   PIEPENBRINK. 

In  communicating  to  Your  Excellency  the  foregoing  sul).stan(e  of  the  communication  to  be  made  to  the  British 
Government,  Your  Excellency's  atiention  is  especially  invited  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  one  of  your  distinguished 
Ijredoccasors  in  a  note  dated  December  3,  1861,  addressed  to  the  French  ifinistor  at  Washington,  in  which  he  expressed 
himself  as  follows: 

"The  destination  of  the  Trent  was  not  a  point  belonging  to  one  of  the  belligerents.  She  was  carrying  her  cargo 
and  her  passengers  to  a  neutral  country,  and  moreover  she  had  taken  them  on  in  a  neutral  port.  If  it  were  admissible 
that  under  such  conditions  the  niMitral  flag  did  not  completely  cover  the  persons  and  merchandise  which  it  was  trans- 
porting, its  immunity  woultl  no  longer  be  anything  liut  an  empty  word;  at  any  time  the  commerce  and  navigation 
of  thiril  powers  would  have  to  suffer  from  their  harmless  or  even  indirect  relations  with  one  or  the  other  of  the  belliger- 
ents; the  latter  would  no  longer  be  entitled  merely  to  require  entire  impartiality  of  a  neutral  and  to  forbid  him  from 
interfering  in  any  way  in  the  hostilities;  but  they  would  place  iipon  his  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  restric- 
tions the  lawfulness  of  which  modern  international  law  has  refused  to  admit."     (Calvo,  Fifth  edition,  V,  pp.  94,  95.) 

Consequently,  the  seizure  of  this  seaman  by  the  French  Government  was  clearly  contrary  to  the  nile  which  the 
French  Government  thus  announced. 
With  assurances,  etc., 

William  G.  Sharp. 


File  No.  344dll2P59/4. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  1166.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  April  6,  1915. 
Ser:  With  reference  to  your  telegram  No.  1209  of  March  2  last,  relative  to  the  detention  of 
August  Piepenbrink,  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  I  have  just  received 
from  the  Foreign  Office,  stating  that  the  British  and  French  Governments  have  decided  to 
liberate  this  man  as  a  friendly  act,  while  reserving  the  question  of  principle  involved,  upon 
which  my  telegram  No.  1879  of  to-day  was  based. 
I  have,  etc., 

Walter  Hines  Pagi!". 


tlnclosure.) 

The  Secretary  of  Stale  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  W.  H.  Page. 

Foreign  Office,  April  3,  1915. 
Your  Excellency:  With  reference  to  Your  Excellency's  note  of  the  4th  instant,  relative  to  the  detention  of 
August  Piepenbrink,  a  German  subject,  who  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  French  cruiser  Conde  out  of  the  United  States 
Steamship  Windher  and  is  at  present  detained  at  Kingston,  Jamaica,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  Excellency  that 
His  Majesty's  Government,  in  common  with  the  French  Government,  have  decided  to  Uberate  this  man  as  a  friendly 
act,  while  reserving  the  question  of  principle  involved. 
I  have,  etc., 

For  the  Secretary  of  State: 

A.  Law. 


File  No.  344dll2P59/ll. 

Ambassador  SJiarp  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  533.]  American  Embassy, 

Paris,  April  21,  1915. 
Sm:  Confirming  this  Embassy's  telegram  No.  699  of  April  17,  relative  to  the  case  of  one 
Piepenbrink  taken  from  the  American  ship  Windier  and  held  under  arrest  as  a  prisoner  of  war 
at  Kingston,  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  and  translation  of  the  note  from  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  substance  of  which  was  embodied  in  my  telegram  No.  699. 
I  have,  etc., 

Wm.  G.  Sharp. 


(Inclosure — Translation.] 

TTie  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Sharp. 

French  Republic,  Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs,  April  15,  1915. 
Mr.  Ambassador:  By  your  letter  of  December  11,  1914,  Your  Excellency  was  pleased  to  bring  to  my  attention  the 
case  of  a  certain  Piepenbrink,  August,  waiter  on  board  the  American  vessel  Windber,  who  was  arrested  by  the  French 
cruiser  Conde  and  landed  at  Kingston,  -where  the  English  authorities  of  that  port  held  him  as  prisoner  of  war. 

I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  case  of  the  said  Piepenbrink  was  duly  submitted  to  the  kind  consideration 
of  the  British  Government  and  that  the  latter  is  in  accord  with  the  French  Government  to  agree  to  release  this  prisoner 
of  war,  as  a  special  favor,  while  reserving  the  question  of  principle.  The  British  Foreign  Office  has  addressed  a  note 
in  this  sense  to  the  American  Embassy  at  London  and  informs  me  that  the  necessary  instructions  have  been  given  to 
the  authorities  at  Kingston  to  liberate  Piepenbrink. 
Kindly  accept,  etc., 

Delcasse. 


PART   XVI. 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  PRIZE  SHIP  EARN. 


137 


\ 


INTERNMENT  OF  THE  GERMAN  PRIZE  SHIP  EARN. 

Kilo  No.  763.72111/1433. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  IS.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  January  13,  1915. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honour  to  inform  you  that  I  loam  a  sliip  named  the  A'.  D.  3  flying  the 
German  flag  entered  the  port  of  San  Juan,  Porto  Rico,  on  the  12th  instant.  The  British  Consul 
states  that  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  this  vessel  is  the  former  British  Fam  of  liondon, 
wkic^h  has  l)(>cn  captured  hy  the  enemy.  Being  private  property  it  is  not  recognized  hy  inter- 
national law  as  lawful  prize  until  it  has  been  taken  into  a  prize  court  of  the  captor  and  adju- 
dicated upon. 

I  have  the  honour  to  request  that  the  United  Slates  Government  will  be  so  good  as  to  cause 
this  matter  to  bo  investigated  by  the  proper  authorities  and,  if  satisfied  that  the  facts  are  as 
stated  above,  to  give  orders  for  the  detention  of  this  vessel  in  the  interests  of  a  proper  observance 
of  neutrality. 

I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Spring-Rice. 


File  No.  7()3.72111/1444. 

The  British  Amhassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  26.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  January  17,  1915. 
Sir:  Referring  to  my  notes  Nos.  18  and  25  of  the  13th  and  14th'  instant,  relative  to  the 
British  ship  Fam  which  has  been  taken  into  the  port  of  San  Juan,  Porto  Rico,  I  have  the  honour 
to  say  that  His  Majesty's  Government  presume  that  the  United  States  Govermnent  wiU  refuse 
the  request  of  the  German  officer  and  that  instructions  will  be  given  to  the  authorities  at  San 
Juan  to  act  in  conformity  with  Article  21  of  the  Convention  signed  at  the  Hague  on  October  18, 
1907,  known  as  No.  13  of  the  Instruments  signed  at  the  Second  Peace  Conference. 
I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Sprixg-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/1552. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Amhassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  29,  1915. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  'acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  notes  of  the  13th, 
14th,  and  17th  instant  in  regard  to  the  steamer  K.  D.  8,  which  entered  the  port  of  San  Juan, 
Porto  Rico,  in  the  possession  of  a  German  prize  crew,  and  to  iiiform  you  in  reply  that,  as  stated 
to  you  informally  at  the  Department,  this  Government,  after  a  careful  investigation  of  the  case, 
determined  to  treat  the  steamer  as  a  tender  to  a  belligerent  fleet,  and  on  the  22nd  instant  instruc- 
tions were  given  that  tlie  vessel  be  ordered  to  leave  port  withm  24  hours  after  notice  to  that 
effect,  and  upon  failure  to  leave,  that  the  vessel,  togetlier  with  the  prize  officers  and  crew,  be 
interned,  the  British  officers  and  crew  and  the  Chinese  seamen  being  released. 

The  DopartuKuit  is  now  advised  that  tlie  vessel,  together  with  the  prize  officers  and  crew, 
was  interned  on  the  25th  instant  at  San  Juan. 
I  have,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


File  No.  763.72111/1736. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  S2.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  February  26,  1915. 
Sir:   In  your  note  of  the  29th  ultimo  you  were  good  enough  to  inform  me  of  the  decision 
of  the  United  States  Government  to  treat  the  steamship  Farn,  or  A'.  D.  3,  which  entered  the 
port  of  Sail  Juan,  Porto  Rico,  m  the  possession  of  a  German  prize  crew,  as  a  tender  to  a  beUig- 

I  Xot  printed. 

139 


140  CASE   OF   THE   FABN. 

criMit  fl(>ot,  and  that  as  a  result  of  the  instructions  given  in  pursuance  of  this  decision  the  vessel 
had  hccii  interned. 

I  understand  from  the  conversations  on  this  question  which  I  have  had  the  honour  to  have 
at  the  Department  of  State,  that  the  United  States  Government  have  been  under  the  impres- 
sion that  the  Farn,  at  the  tune  of  her  original  capture  by  a  German  cruiser,  was  employed  as  an 
Admiralty  collier.  I  am  now  informed  by  my  Government  that  the  vessel  has  not  in  fact  been 
employed  as  a  collier  or  otherwise  on  Admiralty  service  since  the  outbreak  of  war,  and  that  at 
the  time  of  her  capture  she  was  carrying  a  commercial  cargo  to  the  Plate. 

I  am  further  instructed  to  state  that  His  Majesty's  Government  consider  that,  in  any  case, 
whatever  tl\e  previous  status  of  the  vessel  may  have  been,  it  would  be  necessary,  before  the 
vessel  could  be  treated  by  a  neutral  Power  in  whose  port  she  might  find  herself,  as  a  German 
fleet  auxiliary,  instead  of  as  a  prize  under  Article  21  of  the  Hague  Convention,  that  there 
should  have  been  a  finding  of  condemnation  of  her  on  some  other  ground  by  a  competent 
prize  court. 

His  Majesty's  Government  for  these  reasons  consider  that  no  circumstances  have  been 

disclosed  in  the  present  case  which  would  justify  the  treatment  of  the  Farn  in  a  manner  other 

than  that  prescribed  in  Ai-ticle  21  of  the  Hague  Convention  No.  13  of  1907,  and  they  trust  that 

on  further  consideration  the  United  States  Goveniment  will  agree  in  this  view  and  issue  the 

necessary  instructions  to  the  authorities  concerned  for  the  release  of  the  vessel. 

I  have,  etc., 

Cecil  Sprixg-Rice. 


File  No.  763.72111/1736. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  British  Ambassadoi. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  13,  1915. 

Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's  note  of 
the  26th  ultimo  in  relation  to  the  steamship  Farn,  or  K.  D.  3,  which  has  been  interned  in  the 
port  of  San  Juan,  Porto  Rico,  as  a  tender  to  a  belligerent  fleet.  The  Department  is  advised 
that  the  Farn  left  Cardiff  about  September  5,  1914,  for  Montevideo,  with  a  clause  in  her  charter 
to  deliver  coal  to  warships  if  they  so  desired.  Though,  as  you  state,  the  vessel  was  not  em- 
ployed as  a  collier,  or  otherwise,  in  the  Admiralty  service,  this  fact  would  not  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Department  affect  her  status  at  the  time  of  internment  if  she  indeed  acted  as  a  collier  or 
auxiliary  to  a  beUigerent  fleet.  It  is  understood  that  the  Farn  was  a  British  merchant  vessel; 
that  she  had  on  board  a  cargo  of  Cardiff  coal  amountmg  to  some  3,000  tons;  that  she  was  cap- 
tured by  the  German  cruiser  Karlsruhe  on  October  5;  that  the  cruiser  placed  a  prize  crew  and 
ofl&cers  on  board;  and  that  notwithstanding  the  known  practice  of  the  Karlsruhe  to  sink  her 
enemy  prizes,  the  vessel  had  been  at  sea  continuously  since  the  date  of  capture  until  she  put 
into  the  port  of  San  Juan  on  January  12  last  for  provisions  and  water.  The  Department 
believes  that  the  only  reasonable  conclusion  in  the  circumstances,  is  that  between  October  5 
and  January  12  the  Farn  was  used  as  a  tender  to  German  warships.  It  appears  obvious  that  a 
beUigerent  may  use  a  prize  in  its  service  and  that  the  prize  thereby  becomes  stamped  with  a 
character  dependent  upon  the  nature  of  the  service.  It  is  upon  this  view  of  the  case  that 
the  United  States  Government  concluded  to  treat  the  vessel  as  a  tender,  which  character 
accords  with  her  presumed  service  to  the  German  fleet. 

Yom"  Excellency  states  that  it  woiild  be  necessary  before  the  vessel  could  be  treated  as  a 
German  fleet  auxihary  that  she  should  have  been  condemned  by  a  competent  prize  court. 
With  this  conclusion  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  under  the  necessity  of  disagreeing. 
In  the  opinion  of  this  Government  an  enemy  vessel  wliich  has  been  captiu-ed  by  a  beUigerent 
cruiser  becomes  as  between  the  two  governments  the  jiroperty  of  the  captor  without  tlie  inter- 
vention of  a  prize  com-t.  If  no  prize  court  is  avaUable  this  Government  does  not  imderstand 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  captor  to  release  his  prize,  or  to  refuse  to  impress  her  into  its  service. 
On  the  contrary,  the  captor  would  be  remiss  in  his  duty  to  his  Government  and  to  the  efficiency 
of  its  belligerent  operations  if  he  released  an  enemy  vessel  because  he  coiild  not  take  her  in  for 
adjudication. 

As  to  Article  21  of  Hague  Convention  No.  13  of  1907  cited  by  Torn-  ExceUency  as  ])rescribing 
the  treatment  to  be  accorded  to  the  Farn,  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  that  as  it  appears  that  His 
Majesty's  Government  has  not  ratified  this  Convention  it  should  not  be  regarded  as  of  binding 
effect  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 

In  this  relation  I  ventm-e  to  caU  to  yom-  attention  that  the  British  Consul  at  San  Juan  pro- 
tested on  January  12th  against  the  clearance  of  the  Farn,  and  that  Your  ExceUency  in  j^our  note 
of  January  13  requested  that  she  be  detained  in  the  interest  of  neutrality.  It  wsxs  not  until 
January  17  that  Your  ExceUency  informed  the  Department  that  His  Majesty's  Government 


CASE   OF   THE   FARN.  141 

presumed  that  the  United  States  would  act  under  Article  21  of  Hague  Convention  No.  13  of  1907 
in  regard  to  the  release  of  the  vessel.  Suflicient  time  had  thus  elapsed  to  allow  for  communica- 
tion with  British  warships  and  their  appearance  off  the  ])ort  of  San  Juan.  Tlie  result  of  releasing 
a  German  prize  loadcnl  with  coal  at  this  juncture  needs  no  comment. 

In  tlie  circumstances  the  Government  of  tiic  United  States  is  under  the  necessit}'  of  adhering 
to  its  dec'ision  to  intern  until  the  end  of  the  war  the  Steamship  Fam  as  a  fleet  au.xihary. 
I  have,  etc.  For  the  Secretary'  of  State: 

Robert  Lansing. 


File  No.  763.72111/1883. 

The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  124.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  March  26,  1915. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  March  13  in  which  you 
are  good  enough  to  explain  the  groinids  on  wiiich  the  United  States  Government  is  under  the 
necessity  of  adhering  to  its  decision  to  interu  until  the  end  of  the  war  the  steamsliip  Fam  as  a 
fleet  auxiliary. 

Tli(^  tenour  of  your  note  was  duly  telegraphed  to  His  Majesty's  Govcrnm(>nt,  who  desire  me 
to  inform  you  that  it  will  have  their  most  attentive  consideration.  They  prefer,  however,  to 
await  the  receipt  of  the  fuJl  text  before  replying  in  detail. 

Tliey  do  not  at  present  understand  to  whom  the  United  States  Government  feel  themselves 

bound  to  hand  over  the  Fam  at  the  end  of  the  war,  and  they  would  much  appreciate  it  if  they 

could  be  informed  of  the  decision  arrived  at  in  this  respect.     While  they  would  be  very  glad  if 

this  i)oint  could  be  cleared  up,  they  do  not  abandon  their  contention  that  the  Farn  ought  to  be 

released  to  the  British  owners  without  delay. 

I  have,  etc. 

Cecil  Sprixg-Rice. 


I 


PART  XVII. 


NON-CONTRABAND  CHARACTER  OF  HYDROAEROPLANES. 


143 


NON-CONTRABAND  CHARACTER  OF  HYDROAEROPLANES. 

Filo  No.  703.72111/14(19. 

The  German  Amhassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

»lMPERLiL   GeKMAX    EmBASSY, 
Waihington,  January  19,  1915. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  It  has  come  to  my  knowledge  that  a  number  of  hydroaero- 
planes have  been  ordered  in  the  United  States  for  l)eUi<^eront  States  from  the  Curtis  plant  at 
Hammondsport,  N.  Y.,  and  that  a  part  of  them  has  already  l)een  delivered. 

An  airship  named  America  was  dehvered  in  October  of  last  year  to  England  and  five  more 
hydroaeroplanes  of  the  same  type  have  been  dehvered  since. 

England  has  also  orderc'd  24  hydroac^roplanes  of  the  I.  N.  model  (70  horsepower)  from  Curtis. 
Curtis  is  also  building  for  England  12  hydroaeroplanes  of  the  K  model  of  160  horsepower. 
Russia  has  also  recently  ordered  a  number  hydroaeroplanes  of  the  K  model  from  Curtis. 
How  many  is  not  yet  laiown. 

The  motors  for  the  aeroplanes  are  buUt  partly  by  Curtis  himself  at  Hammondsport,  partly 
by  the  Hcrschel  Spillman  Motor  factory  at  North  Tonawanda,  N.  Y. 

The  -wings  are  made  at  the  Curtis  plant,  the  minor  parts  by  the  Autocrat  Manufacturing  Co. 
The  Tonawanda  Boat  Co.  furnishes  the  boat  part. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  hydroaeroplanes  must  be  regarded  as  war  vessels  whose  delivery 
to  belhgerent  States  by  neutrals  should  be  stopped  under  Article  S  of  the  llUh  Convention  of 
the  Second  Hague  Conference  of  October  18,  1907.  Hydi-oaeroplanes  are  not  mentioned  by 
name  in  the  Convention  simply  because  there  was  none  in  1907  at  the  time  of  the  Conference. 

On  the  supposition  that  hydroaeroplanes  are  dehvered  to  belhgerents  against  the  wishes 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  have  the  honor  to  bring  the  foregoing  to  Your  Excel- 
lency's kind  knowledge. 
Accept,  etc., 

J.  Berxstorff. 


File  No.  7G3. 72111/469. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  German  Amhassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  29, 1915. 

Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowldge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellency's  note 
of  the  19th  instant,  and  in  reply  have  to  inform  you  that  the  statements  contained  in  Your 
Excellency's  note  have  received  my  careful  consideration  in  view  of  the  earnest  purpose  of 
this  Government  to  perform  every  duty  which  is  imposed  upon  it  as  a  neutral  by  treaty  stipu- 
lation and  international  law. 

The  essential  statement  in  your  note,  which  impUes  an  obhgation  on  the  part  of  this  Gov- 
ernment to  interfere  in  the  sale  and  dehvery  of  hydroaeroplanes  to  belligerent  powers,  is: 

There  is  no  doubt  that  hydroaeroplanes  must  bo  regarded  as  war  vesseb  wliose  delivery  to  belligerent  States  by 
neutrals  should  be  stopped  under  Article  8  of  the  13th  Convention  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference  of  October  18,  1907. 

As  to  this  assertion  of  the  character  of  hydroaeroplanes  I  submit  the  following  comments: 
The  fact  that  a  hydroaeroplane  is  fitted  wnth  apparatus  to  rise  from  and  ahght  upon  the  sea 
does  not  in  my  opinion  give  it  the  character  of  a  vessel  any  more  than  the  wheels  attached 
to  an  aeroplane  fitting  it  to  rise  from  and  ahght  upon  land  give  the  latter  the  character  of  a 
land  vehicle.  Both  the  hydroaeroplane  and  the  aeroplane  arc  essentially  air  craft;  as  an  aid 
in  niilitary  operations  they  can  only  be  used  in  the  air;  the  fact  that  one  starts  its  flight  from 
the  surface  of  the  sea  and  the  other  from  the  land  is  a  mere  incident  which  in  no  way  affects 
their  aerial  character. 

In  view  of  these  facts  I  must  dissent  from  Your  Excellency's  assertion  that  "  there  is  no 
doubt  that  hych-oaeroplanes  must  be  regarded  as  war  vessels,"  and  consequently  I  do  not 
regard  the  obligations  imposed  by  treaty  or  by  the  accepted  rules  of  international  law  appli- 
cable to  air  craft  of  an^^  sort. 

4556°— 15 10  I'lS 


146  NONCONTRABAND  CHARACTER  OP   HYDROAEROPLANES.  ^ 

In  this  connection  I  further  call  to  Your  Exccllency'3  attention  that  according  to  the 
latest  advices  received  by  this  Department  the  German  Imperial  Government  include  "  balloons 
and  flying  machines  and  their  component  parts"  in  the  list  of  conditional  contraband,  and 
that  in  the  Imperial  Prize  Ordinance,  drafted  September  30,  1909,  and  issued  in  the  Reichs- 
gcsetzblatt  on  August  3,  1914,  appear  as  conditional  contraband  "airships  and  flying  machines" 
(Article  23,  section  8).  It  thus  appears  that  the  Imperial  Government  have  placed  and  still 
retain  air  craft  of  all  descriptions  in  tlie  class  of  conditional  contraband,  for  wliich  no  special 
treatment  involving  neutral  duty  is,  so  far  as  I  am  advised,  provided  by  any  treaty  to  which 
the  United  States  is  a  signatory  or  adhering  power. 

As  in  tlie  views  of  this  Department  the  provisions  of  Convention  XIII  of  the  Second 
Hague  Conference  do  not  apply  to  hydroaeroplanes  I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  discuss 
the  question  as  to  whether  those  provisions  are  in  force  during  the  present  war. 
Accept,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


PART  XVIIL 


DUAL  NATIONALITY. 


147 


p 


DUAL  NATIONALITY. 

Tlie  Secretary  of  State  Ad  Interim  to  Senator  II.  0.  Lodge. 

Department  of  State, 
WasMngton,  June  9,  1915. 

My  Dear  Senator  Lodge:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  June  5,  1915,  in  reply  to  my  letter 
of  June  2,  concerning  the  detention  in  Italy  for  military  service  of  Ugo  Da  Prato,  who  was 
born  in  Boston,  August  25,  1895,  and  went  to  Italy  in  1912  to  study  architecture,  and  whose 
father,  Antonio  Da  Prato,  a  native  of  Italy,  obtained  naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  this  country 
in  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  at  Boston,  March  19,  1892;  that  is,  before  the  son's 
birth.  Accompanying  your  letter  are  the  birth  certificate  of  Ugo  Da  Prato  and  the  naturaliza- 
tion certificate  of  his  father. 

The  Department  has  telegraphed  to  the  American  Ambassador  at  Rome,  directing  him  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Italian  Government  to  the  facts  mentioned  above,  ask  for  the  immediate 
release  of  Ugo  Da  Prato,  and  report  the  result.  As  Ugo  Da  Prato  was  born  in  this  country 
after  his  father  had  obtained  naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  can  be  considered  an  Italian  subject  under  Italian  law,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he 
will  be  released.     I  shall  be  glad  to  inform  you  of  the  Ambassador's  report. 

In  the  Department's  letter  of  June  2  you  were  asked  to  forward  not  only  the  birth  certifi- 
cate of  Ugo  Da  Prato,  but  the  naturalization  certificate  of  his  father,  and  in  this  connection 
the  following  statement  was  made: 

The  Depaitment  is  being  called  upon  to  take  action  in  a  good  many  cases  similar  to  that  of  Ugo  Da  Prato.     The 

Italian  law  concerning  naturalization  of  Italians  in  foreign  countries  is  peculiar.    Article  11  of  the  Italian  Civil  Code 

contains  the  following  provision: 

"Art.  11.  Citizenship  is  lost  by  the  following  persons: 
"I     »    #    » 

"  2.  He  who  has  acquired  citizenship  in  a  foreign  countrj'." 

Article  12,  however,  read.s  as  follows: 

"Art.  12.  The  loss  of  citizenship  in  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  article  does  not  work  exemption  from  the 
obligations  of  the  military  service,  nor  from  the  penalties  imposed  on  those  who  bear  arms  against  their  connfrj'." 

Under  the  provisions  of  law  mentioned  the  Italian  Government  recognizes  the  naturalization  of  Italians  as  citizens 
of  other  countries,  but  holds  them  liable  for  militarj'  service  in  Italy  unless  they  have  boon  expressly  excused  there- 
from. In  view  of  Article  1 1 ,  persons  bom  in  this  country  of  fathers  naturalized  before  their  births  are  not  considered 
Italian  subjects  or  held  lialile  fur  nuUtar>'  service  in  Italy.  It  is  ver>'  important  that  in  each  case  of  thi.'^  kind  the 
Department  should  be  furnished  M'ith  the  best  documentary  e^'iden(■e  procurable  of  the  naturalization  of  the  father 
and  the  subsequent  birth  in  this  country  of  the  son,  so  that  necessary  assurances  may  be  given  to  the  Italian  Govern- 
ment. 

In  your  letter  xmder  acknowledgment  you  make  the  following  observations : 

I  note  what  you  say  in  regard  to  the  Italian  law,  which  obviously  does  not  apply  to  young  Da  Prato,  but,  speaking 
generally,  I  can  not  assent  for  a  moment  to  the  proposition  that  such  a  thing  as  dual  citizenship  is  possible.  As  you  well 
know,  we  constituted  oursehcs  as  champions  against  the  doctrine  of  indefeasible  allegiance  and  have  succeeded  in 
compelling  the  acceptance  of  our  \dew  by  all  the  nations  with  the  exception,  1  think,  of  RuR,sia  and  Turkey.  The 
abandonment  of  indefeasible  allegiance  is  in  itself  the  establishment  of  the  principle  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  dual  citizenship,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  to  attempt  to  retain  the  right  over  a  boy,  born  in  this  coiintry  of 
parents  not  naturalized — which  is  not  the  case  with  Da  Prato — for  militarj'  service  in  the  country  of  origin  of  the  parents 
is  absurd  on  its  face  and  is  something  to  which  we  should  never  assent  for  a  moment. 

After  making  some  observations  concerning  the  provision  of  the  German  law  of  nationality 
of  June  1,  1914,  according  to  which  Germans  who  obtain  naturalization  as  citizens  of  other 
countries  may,  under  certain  conditions,  retain  their  German  nationality,  and  after  observing 
tliat  any  alien  who  endeavors  to  retain  his  original  allegiance  when  he  takes  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  the  United  States  and  becomes  natm-ahzed  as  a  citizen  of  this  coimtry  commits 
perjury,  you  say: 

Italy  *  *  *  has  no  possible  claim  on  the  children  of  Italian  parents,  not  naturalized,  bom  in  this  countrj', 
especially  if  they  have  exercised  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  as  they  are  entitled  to  do  under  tie  14th  amendment 
to  the  Constitution.  Such  a  child  has  never  been  an  Italian  subject  for  one  minute.  Italy  has  no  more  claim  on  him 
than  she  has  on  one  of  my  children  or  one  of  yours.  I  believe  that  there  is  also  something  similar  to  this  in  French 
law.  W'c  shall  find  ourselves  in  a  xny  awkward  position  with  our  large  body  of  natiiralized  citizens  and  their  children 
if  we  do  not  take  the  strongest  position  against  Article  12  of  the  Italian  Civil  Code  which  you  quote. 

149 


150  DUAL   NATIONALITY. 

The  argumont  contained  in  y""r  letter  is  similar  to  that  in  an  article  which  appeared  in 
the  June  nuniber  of  the  Metropolitan  magazine,  in  reference  to  the  Department's  letter  of  April 
2  to  Mr.  P.  A.  LeLong,  junior,  of  Louisiana,  concerning  his  citizenship.  In  the  Department's 
letter  to  Mr.  LeLong  his  attention  was  caUcd  to  the  fact  that,  although,  having  been  horn  ii 
this  country,  he  was  an  American  citizen  under  American  law,  it  appeared  that  he  was  al.^n 
born  a  French  citizen  under  French  law,  because  of  the  fact  that  his  father  was  a  French  citizen. 
The  Department  therefore  observed  that  he  appeared  to  have  been  bom  with  "  a  dual  nation- 
ality." 

As  this  general  subject  has  been  the  cause  of  considerable  comment,  I  venture  to  discuss 
the  matter  at  some  length. 

Dual  nationality  is  not  a  theory  or  doctrine  promulgated  by  the  Department,  but  is  the 
unavoidable  result  of  the  confhcting  laws  of  different  countries.  Under  the  American  law  of 
nationality,  which  is  derived  from  the  Enghsh  law,  American  nationahty  is  based  primarily 
upon  the  fact  of  birth  withm  American  territory  and  jurisdiction,  imder  what  is  known  as  the 
jus  soli,  whereas  in.  the  cotmtries  of  continental  Europe  nationahty  is  acqxiired  primarily  through 
descent,  under  the  jus  sanguinis.  Tliis  follows  naturally  from  the  basis  of  jurisdiction  which 
in  the  common  law  is  the  locus  and  m  the  civil  law  the  persona.  The  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States  however  contain  the  following  provision  in  Section  1993  (Act  of  April  14,  1802) : 

All  children  heretofore  born  or  hereafter  born  out  of  the  limits  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  whose  fathers 
were  or  may  be  at  the  time  of  their  birth  citizens  thereof,  are  declared  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States;  but  the 
rights  of  citizenship  shall  not  descend  to  children  whose  fathers  never  resided  in  the  United  States. 

A  provision  substantially  similar  to  the  above  was  added  to  the  original  British  law  of 
nationality.  Also  the  laws  of  some,  although  not  all,  countries  of  continental  Europe  contain 
provisions  under  which  nationahty  is  acquned,  under  certain  conditions,  through  birth  within 
their  territory.  The  status  of  a  person  who  is  born  a  citizen  of  one  coimtrj'-  under  the  jus  soli 
and  a  citizen  of  another  country  imder  the  jus  sanguinis  is  commonly  termed  "  dual  nationahty." 
Wliether  or  not  this  term  is  considered  apt,  the  fact  remains  that  many  persons  are  born  citizens 
or  subjects  of  two  countries  under  their  respective  laws.  Thus,  a  person  born  in  Italy  of 
American  parents  is  born  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  provided  his  father  has  resided  in  this 
countrj^,  but,  under  certain  conditions,  he  may  also  be  considered  an  Italian  subject.  Also,  a 
person  born  in  the  United  States  of  Itahan  parents  is  born  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  under 
the  law  of  this  country,  and  a  subject  of  Italy  mider  the  law  of  Italy. 

The  fact  of  dual  nationahty  has  been  recognized  by  the  Department  for  many  yeai-s. 
Secretary  of  State  Fish  in  a  report  to  the  President  dated  August  25,  1875,  said: 

The  child  born  of  alien  parents  in  the  United  States  is  held  to  be  a  citizen  thereof  and  to  be  subject  to  duties  with 
regard  to  this  country  which  do  not  attach  to  the  father. 

The  same  principle  on  which  such  cliildren  are  held  by  us  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  to  be  subject 
to  duties  to  this  country,  applies  to  the  children  of  American  fathers  born  without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
and  entitles  the  country  within  whose  jiuisdiction  they  are  born  to  claim  them  as  citizens  and  to  subject  them  to 
duties  to  it. 

Such  children  are  born  to  a  double  character:  The  citizenship  of  the  father  is  that  of  the  child  so  far  as  the  laws  of 
the  country  of  which  the  father  is  a  citizen  are  concerned  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  countrj';  but  the  child 
from  the  circumstances  of  his  birth,  may  acquire  rights  and  owes  another  fealty  besides  that  which  attaches  to  the 
father.     (Moore's  International  Law  Digest,  volume  III,  page  520.) 

I  desire  further  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  statement  in  the  report  of  the 
citizenship  board  which  was  appointed  during  the  administration  of  President  Roosevelt  "to 
ijiquire  into  the  laws  and  practice  regarding  citizenship  of  the  LTnited  States,  expatriation,  and 
protection  abroad,  and  to  report  recommendations  for  legislation  to  be  laid  before  Congress," 
which  report  was  forwarded  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Secretary  of 
State  Elihu  Root,  with  a  letter  of  approval  and  commendation,  dated  December  18,  1906: 

Inasmuch  as  our  Government  declares  that  all  persons  born  in  the  United  States  are  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  also  recognizes,  as  well  as  adopts,  on  its  own  part,  the  rule  that  cliildren  of  citizens  resident  abroad  are  citizens 
of  the  country  to  which  the  parents  owe  allegiance,  there  arises,  as  will  be  seen,  a  conflict  of  citizenship,  spoken  of 
usually  as  dual  allegiance.     (House  Document  No.  326,  59th  Congress,  2d  session,  page  74.) 

A  full  discussion  of  the  subject  of  dual  allegiance  may  be  found  in  Moore's  Digest  of  Inter- 
national Law,  volume  III,  pages  518-551. 

For  the  reasons  mentioned  above  it  is  obviously  imi^ortant  for  the  Department,  in  deahng 
with  the  case  of  a  person  who  was  born  in  this  comitry  and  had  a  father  of  Italian  birth,  to 
ascertain  whether  his  father  had  previously  acquired  naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  the  Ignited 
States.  This  is  especially  important  when  it  is  a  case,  such  as  that  which  you  have  presented, 
of  a  person  who  has  not  yet  reached  his  majority.  The  extent  to  which  this  Government  may 
go,  and  the  arguments  which  it  may  use,  in  the  actual  protection  of  persons  who  were  born 
in  the  United  States  of  alien  fathers  and  who  may  be  molested  while  temporarily  visiting  the 


DUAL    NATIONALITY.  151 

countries  of  origin  of  the  latter  must  necessarily  depend  upon  the  particular  facts  and  circum- 
stances of  each  case.  In  no  case,  in  the  abscncje  of  conventional  arrangements,  can  the  Depart- 
ment assure  such  persons  in  advance  that  they  will  not  he  held  liable,  under  the  laws  of  other 
countries  concerned,  for  the  performance  of  military  or  other  public  service  attaching  to  citizen- 
ship. In  the  Department's  letter  of  May  5  to  Mr.  P.  A.  Le  Long,  Junior,  the  following  statement 
was  made: 

If  at  any  time  in  the  future  you  should  find  it  necessary  to  ^^sit  France  and  should  there  be  molested  upon  the 
ground  that  you  are  a  French  citizen,  you  should  inform  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  the  United  States,  who  would 
report  the  matter  to  the  Department  in  order  that  it  might  take  such  measures  in  your  behalf  as  would  seem  warranted 
by  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  your  case. 

The  Department,  having  advised  American  citizens  generally  "to  avoid  visiting  unneces- 
sarily countries  which  are  at  war"  did  not  encourage  Mr.  LcLong  to  choose  the  present  time  to 
make  an  unnecessary  test  of  his  political  position  in  France. 

The  cases  of  persons  born  in  the  United  States  of  alien  parents  should  not  be  confused 
with  the  cases  of  persons  born  abroad  who  have  obtained  naturalization  as  citizens  of  this 
country.  In  the  former  cases  the  Department  recognizes  now,  as  it  always  has  heretofore,  that 
the  persons  concerned  are  born  with  a  dual  nationality.  In  the  latter  cases  the  Department 
does  not  recognize  the  existence  of  dual  nationality  in  view  of  the  fact  that  persons  who  obtain 
naturalization  as  citizens  of  this  country  are  required  to  renounce  their  original  allegiance. 

Wliile  this  Goverimicnt  holds  that  naturalized  American  citizens  can  not  rightfully  be 
called  upon  to  perform  military  or  other  obligations  which  had  not  actually  accrued  before 
their  emigration,  the  Department  has  alwa5's  deemed  it  advisable  to  call  the  attention  of 
naturalized  Italians  to  the  position  in  which  they  will  be  placed  in  case  they  voluntarily  return 
to  Italy.  During  and  since  the  administration  of  President  Roosevelt  the  Department  of 
State  has  accordingly  issued  a  circular  warning  them  to  this  effect  entitled :  "  Notice  to  American 
Citizens  Formerly  Subjects  of  Italy  who  Contemplate  Returning  to  that  Country, "  which  con- 
tains the  following  statement: 

Naturalization  of  an  Italian  subject  in  a  foreign  country  without  consent  of  the  Italian  Government  is  no  bar  to 
liability  to  military  service. 

Similar  circulars  have  been  issued  during  and  since  the  administration  of  President  Roose- 
velt calling  attention  to  the  status  in  their  native  lands  of  naturalized  citizens  of  the  United 
States  born  in  France  and  other  European  countries.  In  the  circular  concerning  naturalized 
Germans  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  naturalization  of  such  persons  in  this  country  is 
recognized  by  the  German  Government  under  the  treaties  concluded  with  the  German  States 
in  1868,  commonly  known  as  the  "Bancroft  Treaties."  In  this  connection  I  may  say  that  the 
United  States  has  concluded  naturalization  treaties  with  the  following  countries  of  Europe 
besides  Germany:  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Great  Britain,  Norway,  Sweden,  and 
Portugal. 

With  reference  to  your  remarks  concerning  the  status  of  Germans  who  acquire  naturaliza- 
tion in  this  country,  and  particularly  to  the  provision  of  the  new  German  law  of  nationaUty 
according  to  which  German  allegiance  may  be  retained,  imder  certain  conditions,  by  Germans 
naturalized  abroad,  I  mav  say  that  it  is  quite  true  that  no  alien  can  lawfully  acquire  American 
citizenship  tlu'ough  naturalization  and  at  the  same  time  voluntarily  retain  liis  original  nation- 
ality; for  the  third  section  of  the  Naturalization  Act  of  June  29,  1906,  makes  the  following 
requii-ement  of  every  alien  applying  for  naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  this  country: 

He  shall,  before  he  is  admitted  to  citizenship,  declare  on  oath  in  open  court  that  he  will  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  he  absolutely  and  entirely  renounces  and  abjures  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  any  foreign 
jirince,  potentate,  State,  or  sovereignty,  and  particularly  liy  name  to  the  prince,  potent;ite,  State,  or  sovereignty  of 
which  he  was  before  a  citizen  or  subject;  that  he  will  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States 
against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic,  and  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same. 

It  is  obvious  that  any  person  who  takes  the  oath  just  quoted  and  at  the  same  time  volun- 
tarily retains  or  attempts  to  retain  his  original  allegiance  is  guilty  of  perjury  and  dishonor. 
Moreover,  the  naturalization  of  such  a  person  would  be  open  to  cancellation  as  fraudiUent, 
under  the  provision  of  Section  Fifteen  of  the  Naturalization  Law. 

The  Department  of  State  has  not  been  informed  of  any  case  in  which  a  German 
has  attempted  to  acquire  American  citizenship  through  naturalization  and  at  the  same  time 
retain  his  German  nationality  imder  the  provision  of  Section  25  of  the  German  Law  of 
NationaUty. 

In  closing,  allow  me  to  say  tluit  this  Government  lias  not  receded  from  the  position  taken 
many  years  ago  as  to  the  natural  right  of  men  to  make  a  volimtary  change  of  nationahty, 
commonly  known  as  the  right  of  expatriation.  Nevertheless  the  Department  of  State  deems 
it  proper  to  continue  the  practice  which  it  has  followed  for  many  years  of  informimg  naturalized 


I 


152  DUAL   NATIONALITY. 

American  citizens  of  the  position  in  which  they  will  find  themselves  in  case  they  voluntarily 
visit  their  native  countries.  For  tho  same  reason  the  Department  deems  it  proper  to  warn 
persons  having  a  dual  nationaUty  of  the  claims  which  may  be  made  upon  them  by  the  other 
countries  concerned.  It  is  believed  that  the  Department  woidd  not  be  performing  its  full  duty 
in  this  matter  if  it  should  fail  to  give  this  infonnation. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

Robert  Lansing. 
The  Hon.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge, 

Nahant,  Massachusetts. 


PART  XIX. 


CIRCULAR  INSTRUCTIONS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  THE 

ISSUING  OF  PASSPORTS. 


153 


CIRCULAR  INSTRUCTIONS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING   TO  THE 

ISSUING  OF  PASSPORTS. 


File  No.  300.ll/8a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Embassies  and  Legations  in  Europe. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  1,  1914. 
You  are  authorized  to  issue  emergency  passports  to  American  citizens  who  request  them. 
Infonn  Department  if  additional  bhxnk  passports  are  needed.  May  temporarily  use  typewritten 
forms  if  necessary.  Direct  all  consular  ofRcers  to  advise  American  citizens  within  their  districts 
to  register  and  to  give  duphcato  certificates  of  registration,  with  wafer  seals  attached,  to  aU 
persons  registered  who  do  not  bear  passports.  In  case  of  emergency  certificates  of  registration 
may  bo  issued  directly  from  consular  agencies.  StancUng  instructions  concerning  expatriation 
are  to  be  observed.  Afford  protection  to  all  Americans  needing  or  requesting  it.  Communicate 
Dejiartment  each  request  for  financial  assistance,  with  circumstances  of  case,  and  United  States 
address  of  relatives,  and  whether  consuls  have  difficulty  in  drawing  on  Department  for  funds 
deposited  by  relatives.  Advise  Americans  to  avoid  remote  places  and  unnecessary  risks  and  to 
stay  in  capitals  or  large  cities  near  saihng  ports  if  they  must  remain  abroad. 

Bryan. 

File  No.  138.4/19a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Amhassador  Penfield} 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  10,  1914- 

In  case  consular  registration  certificates  are  not  accepted  by  local  officials  for  residence, 

travel,  or  exit  in  place  of  passports,  direct' consuls,  except  consul  at  Vienna  (Brussels,  etc.),  to 

issue  emergency  passports  imder  their  official  seals  and  signatures  until  further  notice,  and  for 

that  purpose  to  have  Idank  passports  printed,  Form  No.  9.     Apphcations  should  be  taken  in 

duphcate,  and  extra  copies  sent  to  the  Department  through  Embassy  (or  Legation).     Caution 

consuls  to  require  positive  evidence  of  citizenship.     Fees  are  not  to  be  required  for  issuance  of 

emergency  passports  or  execution  of  applications  tlierefor.     Report  doubtful  cases  with  home 

address. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  138.4/27a. 

The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Embassies  and  Legations  in  Europe. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State. 

Washington,  September  12, 1914. 
The  Department  is  informed  that  many  persons  not  American  citizens  apply  for  American 
passports  anil  considar  registration  certificates  to  enable  them  to  leave  their  native  lands,  or 
other  European  countries,  and  come  to  tliis  country,  some  of  them  for  the  special  purpose  of 
evading  military  service.  It  is,  therefore,  especially  important  to  observe  standing  instructions 
concerning  the  issuance  of  these  documents.  Regular  emergency  passports  and  consular  regis- 
tration certificates  should  be  issued  only  to  native  and  naturahzed  American  citizens  and 
citizens  of  the  insidar  possessions.  Native  citizens  can  not  be  required  to  produce  birth  certifi- 
cates, but  should  be  required  to  submit  satisfactory  identification.  In  doubtful  cases  they  should 
be  required  to  give  references  to  persons  in  this  country,  of  whom  the  Department  may  make 
inquiries.     Persons  claiming  citizensliip  through  natm-ahzation  should  be  required  to  submit 

'  Same,  mutatis  mutandis,  to  the  Embassies  at  Paris,  Berlin,  London,  Rome,  and  Madrid,  and  the  Legations  at  Brussels,  Athens,  The 
Hague,  Christiania,  Stockholm,  and  Berne. 

155 


156  PASSPORT    REGULATIONS. 

naturalization  cortificates  or  old  passports.  If  not  provi(l(Ml  with  such  documents,  the  Depart- 
ment should  bo  informed  by  telegraph  of  name  of  court  in  wliich  naturahzation  is  alleged,  and 
date,  so  that  inquiries  may  be  made. 

Limited  passports,  under  section  1,  Act  of  March  2,  1907,  may  be  issued  by  embassies  and 
legations  only  to  persons  who  have  r(^sided  in  tliis  country  three  years,  have  made  declarations 
of  their  intention  to  become  American  citizens,  and  have  sojoxirned  abroad  for  less  than  six 
months.  They  should  not  be  issued  in  countries  of  which  appV- cants  are  nativ(!s,  and  they 
shoiild  contain  statements  that  they  are  not  vaUd  in  such  countries.  They  should  be  issued 
only  to  persons  desiring  to  return  immediately  to  the  United  States,  and  should  not  be  issued 
to  persons  desiring  to  visit  coimtries  with  which  their  native  countries  are  at  war. 

Special  consular  registration  certificates  may  be  issued  to  wives  of  persons  in  the  United 
States  who  have  resided  here  for  more  than  three  years  and  have  made  declarations  of  their 
intention  to  become  American  citizens.  Such  certificates  should  not  describe  the  holdere  as 
American  citizens,  but  should  set  forth  then-  exact  status. 

Other  than  the  above,  no  formal  documents  should  be  issued  by  embassies,  legations,  or 
considatcs  of  the  United  States  to  persons  abroad.  In  cases  of  doubt,  Department's  authoriza- 
tion shoidd  be  obtained  before  passports  or  registration  certificates  are  issued. 

Repeat  to  consulates. 

Lansing. 


File  No.  138/48a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  American  Diplomatic  and  Cons^dar  Officers. 

[Circular.] 

Department  of  State, 
^Vashington,  Decemher  21,  1914- 

New  Passport  Regulations. 

Gentlemen:  In  confirmation  of  the  Department's  recent  telegraphic  instructions  to 
diplomatic  and  certain  consular  officers  concerning  the  preparation  of  applications  for  Depart- 
mental and  emergency  passports,  and  the  issuance  of  the  latter,  the  following  instructions  are 
given  for  your  guidance.  These  instructions  are  prescribed  in  pursuance  of  the  passport 
regulations  signed  by  the  President  November  13,  1914. 

EVIDENCE    OF    CITIZENSHIP    AND    IDENTIFICATION. 

Conditions  precedent  to  the  granting  of  a  passport  are,  under  the  law  and  rules  prescribed 
by  authority  of  the  law,  that  the  citizenship  of  the  applicant,  his  identity,  and,  as  a  ride,  liis 
permanent  residence  in  the  United  States  and  definite  intention  to  return  to  it,  with  the 
purpose  of  performing  the  duties  of  citizensliip,  shall  satisfactorily  be  established.  (See  cir- 
cular instruction  of  July  26,  1910,  entitled  "Protection  of  Native  Americans  Residing  Abroad,' 
and  cu-cular  instruction  of  Aprd  19,  1907,  entitled  "Expatriation,"  as  amended  by  circidar 
instruction  of  May  14,  1908.)  Exceptions  to  the  latter  condition  maj-  be  made  in  some  cases 
by  special  direction  of  the  Department,  particidarly,  in  cases  of  person  residing  abroad  as 
representatives  of  American  trade  and  commerce  and  as  missionaries  of  American  church 
organizations. 

The  applicant  should,  if  possible,  be  introduced  by  a  reputable  person  known  to  the  office 
which  takes  the  application,  or,  if  tliis  is  impossible,  he  should  be  required  to  identify  himself 
bj'  satisfactory  documentary  evidence.  In  doubtful  cases  references  to  persons  in  this  country 
should  be  required,  so  that  the  Department  may  make  proper  enquii-ies  concerning  the 
apphcants. 

Emergency  passports  and  consular  registration  certificates  should  not  he  accepted  as  conclusive 
evidence  of  citizenship.  In  this  relation  it  may  be  observed  that  in  some  cases  such  docmnents 
have  been  issued  hastily  and  without  proper  examination  mto  the  citizenship  and  identity  of 
the  applicants,  especially  thu-ing  the  period  immediately  following  the  outbreak  of  the  present 
European  war. 

NATIVE    AMERICAN    CITIZENS. 

In  taking  the  passport  application  of  a  person  alleging  native  citizenship,  you  should 
require  the  applicant  to  submit  a  birth  certificate,  if  possible,  or  letters  or  other  documents 
satisfactorUy  establishing  his  citizensliip.  The  nature  of  the  evidence  submitted  to  you  must 
be  stated  in  the  passport  application. 


PASSPORT  REUULATI0K9,  157 

NATURALIZED   AMERICAN    CITIZENS. 

A  person  claiming  citizenship  Ijy  naturalization  must  be  required  to  submit  his  certificate  of 
naturalization  or  a  certifud  copy  of  the  court  record  thereof,  or  an  old  jxissfort  issued  by  the  Depart- 
ment, and  his  passport  application  must  state  the  mime  of  the  court  in  which  he  obtained  naturali- 
zation and  the  date  thereof.  If  an}^  such  pei-son  is  unable  to  submit  such  documentary  evidence 
of  his  naturalization,  you  should  inform  the  Department  of  the  name  of  the  court  in  which 
he  alleges  that  he  obtamed  naturahzation  and  the  date  thereof,  so  that  the  Department  may 
take  steps  to  verify  his  allegation. 

PHOTOGRAPHS   OF   APPLICANTS. 

Each  apphcant  for  a  passport  must  submit  triplicate  unmounted  photographs  of  himself 
on  thin  paper,  not  larger  than  tliree  by  three  mches  in  size,  one  to  be  attached  to  each  of  his 
a])i)lications  by  the  officer  before  whom  they  are  executed,  and  the  third  to  be  attached  to  the 
passport  and  to  be  partly  stamped  with  an  impression  of  the  seal  of  the  issuing  office. 

An  application  forw^ardcd  to  the  Department  for  a  regular  passport  must  necessarily  be 
accompanied  by  a  loose  photogi-aph  of  the  applicant  in  addition  to  the  one  attached  to  the 
apphcation,  so  that  the  former  may  be  attached  to  the  passport,  with  an  impression  of  the 
Department's  seal. 

NAMES    OF    COUNTRIES    APPLICANTS    EXPECT   TO    VISIT    AND    OBJECTS    OF    VISITS. 

Each  application  must  state  the  names  of  the  countries  which  the  applicant  expects  to 
visit  and  the  object  of  the  visit.  The  statement  concerning  the  object  of  the  applicant's  visit 
should  be  general  in  form,  thus:  "Commercial  business,"  "health,"  "study,"  visitmg  rela- 
tives," "recreation,"  "setthng  an  estate,"  etc. 

With  reference  to  the  statement  "  conmiercial  business,"  you  arc  instructed  that  no  men- 
tion should  be  made  of  the  exact  nature  of  the  business  m  which  the  applicant  is  engaged; 
that  is,  it  would  be  improper  to  state  the  name  or  names  of  the  concerns  which  tlie  applicant 
rejjresents  or  the  nature  of  the  goods  which  he  expects  to  purchase  or  sell.  (The  fonn  of  the 
statement  wi'itten  upon  the  faces  of  the  passports  is  quoted  below.) 

ISSUANCE    OF    EMERGENCY    PASSPORTS. 

Diplomatic  and  consular  officers  authorized  to  issue  emergency  passports  should  exercise 
the  greatest  caution  in  doing  so,  and  should  require  of  each  apphcant  unquestionable  evidence 
of  his  citizenship  and  identitj^.  A  photograph  of  the  applicant  should  be  attached  to  the 
passport  (in  the  upper  left  hand  corner)  with  an  impression  of  the  seal  of  the  issumg  office, 
which  should  be  so  placed  as  partly  to  cover  one  side  but  not  the  features.  The  following 
statement  should  be  made  upon  the  face  of  the  passport  (in  the  upper  right  hand  corner) : 

The  person  to  whom  this  passport  is  issued  has  declared  iiuder  oath  that  he  desires  it  for  use  in  visiting  the 
countries  liereinafter  named,  for  the  following  objects: 


(Name  of  country.)  (Obiect  of  visit  ) 

(Name  of  country.)  (Object  of  visit.) 


(Nameof  countrj-.)  (Object  of  visit.) 

This  passport  is  not  valid  for  use  in  other  countries  except  for  necessary  transit  to  or  from  the  countries  named. 

Rubber  stamps  should  be  used  in  making  the  above  form  of  statement. 

When  an  American  citizen,  sojourning  abroad  and  holding  a  passport  limited  for  use  in 
certain  countries,  finds  it  necessary  to  visit  another  country,  not  mentioned  therein,  he  may 
turn  in  the  passport  which  he  holds  at  the  American  Embassy,  Legation,  or  Consulate  autliorizcd 
to  issue  emergency  passports  in  the  country  where  he  is  sojourning,  and  obtain  an  emergency 
passport  lunited  for  use  in  the  particular  trip  which  he  has  in  view.  Upon  his  retm-n,  he  may 
surrender  such  emergency  passport  and  recover  the  passport  whicli  he  jjrevioush-  held.  It  is 
not  proper  for  one  person  to  hold  two  valid  passports. 

In  the  issuance  of  emergency  passports  under  the  conditions  just  mentioned  the  same  rules 
should  be  observed  as  in  the  issuance  of  emergency  passports  in  general. 

AMENDMENT    OF    PASSPORTS    ISSUED    PRIOK    TO    THESE    REGULATIONS. 

American  citizens  holding  vahd  passports  issued  jjrior  to  these  regulations  should  be  notified, 
through  the  press  or  otherwise,  to  present  themselves  to  a  diplomatic  or  consular  office  within 
two  weeks,  if  possible,  so  that  their  passports  may  be  amended  to  conform  with  the  new  passport 


158  PASSPORT  BEOUI.ATIONS. 

regulations.  The  DopartmcMit  has  reason  to  believe  that  there  are  some  persons  abroad  holding 
emergency,  and  pei'haps  Departmental,  passports  to  which  they  are  not  entitled.  Therefore, 
when  a  passport  is  presented  to  you  for  amendment  in  accordance  with  the  new  regulations, 
you  should  examine  the  holder  carefully  and  recjuire  liim  to  submit  the  same  evidence  of  his 
citizenship  and  identity  which  would  bo  requh-ed  of  him  were  ho  making  an  original  application 
for  a  passport.  If  any  holder  of  a  passport  appears  to  be  not  entitled  to  it,  j-ou  should  retain 
the  passport,  investigate  the  case,  and  inform  the  Department  fully  of  the  pertinent  facts  and 
your  conclusions. 

AH  liolders  of  emergency  passports  who  expect  to  continue  their  residence  abroad  for  a 
considerable  period,  should  bo  notified  to  apply  forthwith  for  regular  Departmental  passports. 

W.  J.  Brtax. 


File  No.  138/55. 

Minister  Whitlock  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Brussels,  December  SO,  1914. 
American  tourists  continue  to  come  to  Belgium  ostensibly  to  do  charity  work,  bring  in 
money  or  take  out  women  and  children,  but  in  reaUty  to  satisfy  curiosity  and  a  desire  to  see 
Belgium.  Despite  all  our  warnings  and  public  annoimcements  of  German  military  authorities 
a  great  many  of  them  persist  in  carrying  private  letters  and  doing  other  things  that  might  affect 
our  neutrahty.  Subordinate  German  frontier  officials  usually  permit  entry  into  Belgium  ^vithout 
difficulty  on  presentation  of  ordinary  passport,  but  traveling  about  the  country  and  departure 
from  it  require  special  representations  by  the  Legation,  use  of  influence  which  should  be  devoted 
to  more  unportant  matters,  and  add  to  our  responsibihty.  I  feel  ver}'  strongly  that  we  should 
take  all  possible  measures  to  preserve  the  influence  and  prestige  of  the  Legation  and  commis- 
sion upon  which  the  food  supply  of  the  civil  population  now  depends. 

I  venture  therefore  to  urge  upon  the  Department  that  it  decline  to  grant  passports  for 
traveling  into  Belgium  except  in  cases  of  proven  necessity.  I  venture  further  to  recommend 
that  the  Department  endorse  ordinary  passports  "not  good  for  traveling  into  Belgiiun."  I  trust 
that  the  Department  wiU  also  advise  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  in  this  sense  and  will 
further  advise  them  to  dissuade  bearers  of  passports  from  attempting  to  cross  the  border. 

Whitlock. 


File  138/55. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Sharp. ^ 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  7,  1915. 
Do  not  issue  emergency  passports  for  use  in  Belgium  unless  applicants  obhged  to  go  thither 
by  special  exigency  or  authorized  by  Red  Cross  or  Belgian  Refief  Commission. 

Bryan. 


File  No.  138/83a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  American  Diplomatic  and  Consular  Officers  {Including  Consular  Agents). 

[Circular.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  8,  1915. 

TERMINATION,      EXTENSION,      AND     AMENDMENT      OF      PASSPORTS,     AND     ADVICE     TO    AMERICANS 

TRAVELING    ABROAD. 

Gentlemen:  The  Department  sends  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  "Rules  Governing  the 
Granting  and  issuing  of  Passports  in  the  United  States,"  signed  by  the  President  January  12, 
1915,  which  became  effective  February  1,  1915.  Your  particular  attention  is  cjdled  to  sec- 
tion 1 1  of  the  rules,  which  reads  as  follows : 

Expiration  and  renewal  of  passport. — A  pa^isport  expires  six  months  from  the  date  of  its  issuance.  A  new  one  will 
be  issued  upon  a  new  application,  accompanied  by  the  old  passport,  and,  if  the  applicant  be  a  naturalized  citizen, 
the  old  passport  will  be  accepted  in  lieu  of  a  certificate  of  naturalization,  if  the  application  upon  wliich  it  was  issued 
Ls  found  to  contain  sufficient  information  as  to  the  naturalization  of  the  applicant.  Passports  are  not  renewed  by  tlie 
Department,  but  a  peison  abroad  holding  a  passport  issued  by  the  Department  may  have  it  renewed  for  a  period  of 
six  months  upon  presenting  it  to  a  diplomatic  or  principal  consular  officer  of  the  United  States,  when  it  is  about  to 
expire,  with  a  sworn  statement  of  the  names  of  the  countries  which  he  expects  to  visit  and  the  objects  of  his  visits 
thereto.     No  passport  shall  be  renewed  more  tlian  twice. 

1  Same,  mutatis  mutandis,  to  the  Embassies  at  Berlin,  London,  and  Rome,  and  the  Legations  at  The  Hague  and  Copenhagen. 


PASSPORT  REGULATIONS.  159 

Tho  statoiiKMit  inserted  in  tlio  passport  eonconiintj  tlio  names  of  tlio  countries  which  the 
holder  expects  to  visit  and  the  objects  of  his  visits  thereto  has  been  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Tlie  person  to  whom  thi^  passport  !■<  Issued  has  declared  under  oath  that  he  desires  it  for  use  in  visiting  tlie  countries 
luax'iiiafter  named,  fur  the  following  objects: 


(Name  of  country.)  (Object  ol  visit.) 

(Name  of  country.)  (Object  of  visit.) 

(Name  of  oountr)-.)  (Object  of  visit.) 

This  pa.ssport  is  not  vali<l  for  use  in  other  countries  except  for  necessary  transit  to  or  from  the  countries  named, 
unless  amended  by  an  American  diplomatic  or  principal  consular  officer. 

You  will  nott^  that  passports  issued  by  the  Department  arc  now  limited  to  expire  six  months 
from  the  date  of  issuance,  but  tliat  they  may  be  renewed  twice  by  diplomatic  or  consular  officers, 
instead  of  once  as  heretofore.  You  will  also  note  that  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  are 
authorized  to  amend  the  statement  concerning  the  coimtries  to  bo  visited  and  the  objects  of 
the  visits. 

In  extending  a  Department  passport,  which  is  about  to  expu'e,  you  should  use  the  fol- 
lowing form: 

Extended  for  six  montlis  from  date  of  expiration. 


(.\merican  ambassador,  minister,  consul-general,  or  consul.) 
at 

(Date.) 


It  would  bo  advisable  to  have  rubber  stamps  prepared  for  tho  above  statement. 

When  a  person  holding  a  passport  limited  for  iise  in  ctu'tain  countries  named  therein  presents 
a  satisfactory  sworn  statement  to  the  effect  that  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  visit  a  country  or 
countries  not  named  therein,  for  a  legitimate  object,  you  may  amend  the  passport  to  enable 
him  to  do  so,  using  the  following  form: 

Upon  the  sworn  application  of  the  holder  of  this  passport,  it  is  hereby  amended  for  use  in  visiting  the  additional 
countries  hereinafter  named,  for  the  following  objects: 


(Name  of  country.)  (Object  of  visit.) 

(Name  of  country.)  (Object  of  visit.) 

(Name  of  country .)  (Object  of  visit.) 

(American  ambassador,  minister,  consul-general ,  or  consul.) 

at 

(Date.) 

For  this  statement  also  you  should  have  rubber  stamps  prepared. 

In  each  case  in  wliich  a  passport  is  amended  a  memorandum  of  such  amendment  should 
l)e  made  and  forwarded  to  the  Department,  to  hv,  attached  to  tho  original  application  for  the 
passport.  Except  in  unusual  cases,  it  will  not  bo  necessary  to  accompany  such  memoranda 
with  regular  despatches. 

Wlien  a  passport  is  amended  in  the  maimer  indicated  it  is,  of  course,  unnecessary  to  issue 
an  emergency  passport,  as  authorized  by  the  general  instruction  of  December  21,  1914,  entitled 
"New  Passport  Regulations"  (page  3). 

2.  The  Department  also  sends  herewith  copies  of  its  printed  cu-cidars  of  February  8,  1915, 
and  November  17,  1914,  entitled,  respectively,  "Notice  Concerning  Passports  and  Registration 
in  Consulates,"  and  "Notice  to  American  Citizens  who  Contemplate  Visiting  Belligerent 
Countries." 

In  the  cu-cular  first  named,  attention  is  called  to  the  necessity  of  having  passports  visaed 
for  entrance  into  certain  countries,  and  the  advisability  of  having  them  visaed  for  entrance 
into  other  countrii^s.  American  citizens  are  also  reminded  that,  when  they  make  a  prolonged 
stay  in  any  foreign  country,  they  should  apply  for  consular  registration  at  the  American  con- 
sulate nearest  the  place  in  which  they  are  sojourning. 

In  the  circular  of  November  17,  Americans  are  advised  not  to  visit  belligerent  countries 
unnecessarily,  and  particularly  to  avoid,  if  possible,  passmg  through  or  from  a  beUigereut 
country  to  a  country  wliich  is  at  war  theromth.  The  reasons  for  this  advice  are  obvious. 
Those  who  find  it  necessary  to  go  to  belligerent  countries  are  advised  concerning  the  necessity 
of  providing  themselves  with  passports,  and  other  documentary  identification.  They  are  also 
cautioned  to  avoid  unneutral  conduct  or  utterances.  In  this  relation,  it  may  be  observed  in 
passing  that  it  is  even  more  important,  if  possible,  for  those  who  represent  this  Government 
oflicially  to  avoid  unneutral  conduct  or  utterances. 

Before  issuing  an  emergency  passport,  or  extending  a  Department  passport,  to  enable  the 
holder  to  visit  a  belligerent  country,  you  should  endeavor  to  ascertam,  by  discreet  mquiry, 


160  PASSPORT  BEOULATIONS. 

whether  he  intends  to  visit  such  country  for  a  legitimate  purpose,  not  inconsistent  with  his 
status  as  an  American  citizen,  although,  in  the  case  of  a  person  traveling  abroad  as  representative 
of  an  American  concern,  it  is  not  necessary  or  proper  to  state  iri  the  passport  the  name  of  the 
concern  which  lie  represents  or  the  nature  of  tlie  goods  wliich  he  is  eiuk-avoring  to  sell. 

If  you  deem  it  advisable,  you  may  have  extra  cipies  of  the  two  circulars  last  mentioned 
printed,  for  distribution  on  occasion  to  American  citizens. 
I  am,  etc., 

W.  J.  Bryan. 


[Inclosure  1.] 
RULES   GOVERNING  THE   GRANTING  AND  ISSUING   OP  PASSPORTS  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

1.  Authority  to  issue. — Section  4075  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  as  amended  by  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  June  14,  3902,  provides  that  "the  Secretary  of  State  may  grant  and  issue  passports,  and  cause  passports  to  be 
granted,  issued,  and  verified  in  foreign  countries  by  such  diplomatic  or  consular  officers  of  the  United  States,  and  by 
such  chief  or  other  executive  officer  of  the  insular  possessions  of  the  United  States,  and  under  such  rules  as  the  President 
shall  designate  and  prescribe  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States."  The  following  rules  are  accordingly  prescribed 
for  the  granting  and  issuing  of  passports  in  the  United  States. 

2.  By  whom  ksued  and  refu.ial  to  issue. — No  one  hut  the  Secretary  of  State  may  grant  and  issue  passports  in  the 
United  States  (Revised  Statutes,  sections  4075,  407S),  and  he  is  empowered  to  refuse  them  in  his  dis'^retion. 

Passports  are  not  issued  by  American  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  abroad,  except  in  cases  of  emergency;  and 
a  citizen  who  is  abroad  and  desires  to  procure  a  passport  must  apply  therefor  through  the  nearest  diplomatic  or  consular 
officer  to  the  Secretaiy  of  State. 

Applications  for  passports  by  persons  in  Porto  Rico  or  the  Philippines  should  be  made  to  the  Chief  Executives  of 
those  islands.     The  evidence  required  of  such  applicants  is  similar  to  that  required  of  apphcants  in  the  United  States. 

3.  Fee. — By  Act  of  Congress  approved  March  23, 1888,  a  fee  of  one  dollar  is  required  to  be  collected  for  every  citizen's 
passport.  That  amount  in  currency  or  po.stal  money  order  should  accompany  each  application  made  by  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States.  Orders  should  be  made  payable  to  the  disbursing  clerk  of  the  Department  of  State.  Drafts  or  checks 
will  not  be  accepted. 

4.  Applications. — ^A  person  who  is  entitled  to  receive  a  passport,  if  within  the  United  States,  must,  submit  a  written 
application,  in  the  form  of  an  affidavit,  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  appUcatiou  should  be  made  by  the  person  to 
whom  the  passport  is  to  be  issued  and  signed  by  liim,  as  it  is  not  proper  for  one  person  to  apply  for  another. 

The  affidavit  must  be  made  before  a  clerk  of  a  Federal  or  State  court  within  the  jurisdiction  of  which  the  applicant 
or  his  witness  resides,  and  the  seal  of  the  court  must  be  affixed. 

If  the  applicant  signs  by  mark,  two  attesting  witnesses  to  his  signature  are  required.  The  applicant  is  required  to 
state  the  date  and  place  of  his  birth,  his  occupation,  the  place  of  his  permanent  residence,  and  within  what  length  of 
time  he  will  return  to  the  United  States  with  the  pui-pose  of  residing  and  performing  the  duties  of  citizenship.  He  is 
also  required  to  state  the  names  of  the  foreign  countries  which  he  expects  to  visit,  and  the  objects  of  his  visit  thereto. 
The  latter  statement  should  be  brief  and  general  in  form,  thus;  "commercial  business";'  "to  attend  to  the  settlement 
of  an  estate";  "to  bring  wife  and  children  to  this  country." 

The  applicant  must  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States. 

The  application  must  be  accompanied  by  a  description  of  the  person  applying,  and  should  state  the  following 

particulars,  viz:  Age,  ;  stature,  feet inches  (English  measure);  forehead,  ;  eyes,  ; 

nose, ;  mouth, ;  chin, ;  hair, ;  complexion, ;  face, ;  special  identifjing  marks, 

if  any  (scars,  birthmarks,  etc.). 

The  application  must  also  be  accompanied  by  duplicate  photographs  of  the  applicant,  on  thin  paper,  unmounted, 
and  not  larger  in  size  than  three  by  three  inches.  One  must  be  attached  to  the  back  of  the  application  by  the  clerk  of 
court  before  whom  it  is  made,  with  an  impression  of  the  seal  of  the  court  so  placed  as  to  cover  part  of  the  photograph 
but  not  the  features,  and  the  other  sent  loose,  to  be  attached  to  the  passport  by  the  Department.  Photographs  on  card- 
board or  postcards  will  not  be  accepted. 

The  application  must  be  supported  by  an  afiidavit  from  at  least  one  credible  witness  that  the  applicant  is  the  person 
he  represents  himself  to  be,  and  that  the  facts  stated  in  the  application  are  true  to  the  best  of  the  witness's  knowledge  and 
belief.  This  affidavit  must  be  made  before  the  clerk  of  court  before  whom  the  application  is  executed  and  the  witness 
must  be  an  American  citizen,  who  resides  witliin  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  The  applicant  or  his  witness  must  be 
known  to  the  clerk  of  court  before  whom  the  application  is  executed,  or  must  be  able  to  satisfy  such  officer  as  to  his 
identity  and  the  bona  fides  of  the  appUcation. 

5.  Native  citizens. — An  application  containing  the  information  indicated  by  rule  4  will  be  sufficient  e\T.dence  in  the 
case  of  a  native  citizen;  except  that  a  person  born  in  the  United  States  in  a  place  where  births  are  recorded  will  be 
expected  to  submit  a  birth  certificate  with  his  application. 

A  person  of  the  Cliinese  race,  alleging  birth  in  the  United  States,  must  obtain  from  the  Commisaioner  of  Immigration  or 
Chinese  inspector  in  charge  at  the  port  through  which  he  proposes  to  leave  the  country  a  certificate  upon  his  application, 
under  the  seal  of  such  officer,  showing  that  there  has  been  granted  to  him  by  the  latter  a  return  certificate  in  accordance 
with  rule  16  of  the  Chinese  Regulations  of  the  Department  of  Labor.  For  this  purpose  special  blank  forms  of  applica- 
tion for  passports  are  provided. 

Passports  issued  by  the  Department  of  Stale  or  its  diplomatic  or  consular  representatives  are  intended  for  identifi- 
cation and  protection  in  foreign  countries,  and  not  to  facilitate  entry  into  tlie  United  States,  immigi-ation  being  under 
the  supervision  of  the  Department  of  Labor. 

6.  A  person  born  abroad  uhose  father  xoas  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States.— In  addition  to  the  statements  required 
by  rule  4,  his  application  must  show  that  liis  father  was  born  in  the  United  States,  resided  therein,  and  was  a  citizen 
at  the  time  of  the  applicant's  birth.  The  Department  m?y  require  that  this  affidaxit  be  supixirted  by  that  of  one  other 
citizen  acquainted  with  the  facts. 

1  An  applicant  who  slates  that  lie  is  going  abroad  on  commercial  husiness  should  submit  with  his  application  a  letter  from  the  head  of  the  con- 
cern which  he  represents. 


PASSPORT   REGULATIONS.  161 

7.  Naluralized  dlizens. — In  addition  to  the  statements  required  by  rule  4,  a  naturalized  citizen  must  transmit  liis 
certificate  of  naturalization,  or  a  duly  certified  copy  of  the  court  record  thereof,  with  his  application.  It  will  be 
retunu'd  lo  liim  after  inspection.  Ue  must  state  in  his  affidavit  wlKm  and  from  wluit  i>ort  he  emigrated  to  this  country, 
what  ship  lie  sailed  on,  where  ho  h:vs  lived  since  liis  arri\al  in  the  I'nited  States,  wlien  and  before  what  court  he  w:is 
naturalized,  and  that  \w  is  the  identical  person  desiribed  in  the  certificat*?  of  naturalization.  Tlie  signature  to  the  ai)i)li- 
cation  should  conform  in  orthography  to  the  applicant's  name  as  written  in  his  certificate  of  naturalization,  or  an  ex- 
planation of  the  differences  should  be  submitted. 

8.  Woman's  upplkalion. — If  she  is  unmarried,  in  addition  to  the  statements  renuired  by  rule  4,  she  should  stale 
that  she  has  never  been  married.  If  she  is  the  wife  or  widow  of  a  native  citizen  of  the  United  States  the  fact  should  be 
made  to  appear  in  her  ar)plic;ition,  which  should  be  made  according  to  tlu;  form  {)re.scribed  for  a  native  citizen,  wliether 
she  was  born  in  this  country  or  abroad.  If  she  is  the  wife  or  widow  of  a  natunilized  citizen,  in  addition  to  the  state- 
ments reciuired  by  rule  4,  s}io  must  transmit  for  insjiection  her  husband's  certificate  of  naturalization  or  a  certified  copy 
of  the  court  record  thereof,  must  state  that  she  is  the  wife  (or  widow)  of  the  person  described  therein,  and  must  set  forth 
the  facts  of  his  birth,  emigration,  natunilization,  and  residence,  as  reipiired  in  the  rules  go\erning  the  application  of  a 
naturalized  citizen.  She  should  sign  her  owTi  Christian  name  with  the  family  name  of  her  husband:  (Thus,  Mary  Doe; 
not  Mrs.  Jolin  Doe.) 

A  married  woman's  citizenship  follows  that  of  h<'r  husband.  It  is  essential,  therefore,  that  a  woman's  marital 
relations  bo  indicated  in  her  application  for  a  passport,  and  thiit  in  the  case  of  a  married  woman  her  husband's  citizen, 
ship  be  establ'shed. 

9.  I'he  child  of  a  naturalised  citizen  claiming  citizenship  throxigh  the  naturalization  of  the  parent. — In  addition  to  the 
statements  re(|uired  by  rule  4,  the  applicant  must  state  that  he  or  she  is  the  son  or  daughter,  as  the  case  may  be,  of  the 
person  described  in  the  certificate  of  naturalization,  wliicli  must  bo  submitted  for  inspection,  and  must  set  forth  the 
facts  of  emigration,  naturalization  and  residence,  as  required  in  the  rules  governing  the  appLication  of  a  natiu-alized 
citizen. 

10.  A  resident  of  an  insular  possession  of  the  United  States  who  owes  allegianee  to  the  United  S  tales . — In  addition  to  the 
statements  required  by  rule  4,  he  must  state  that  he  owes  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and  tluit  ho  does  not  acknowl- 
edge allegiance  to  any  other  government,  and  must  submit  aflldavits  from  at  least  two  credible  witnesses  liaving  good 
means  of  knowledge  in  substantiation  of  his  statements  of  birth,  residence,  and  loyalty.  No  fee  is  required  for  the 
issuance  by  the  Department  of  an  insular  passport. 

11.  Expiration  and  renewal  of  passport. — A  passport  expires  six  montlis  from  the  date  of  its  issuance.  A  new  one 
will  be  issued  upon  a  new  application,  accompanied  by  the  old  passport,  and.  If  the  applicant  be  a  naturalized  citizen, 
the  old  passport  will  b(^  accepted  in  lieu  of  a  certificate  of  naturalization,  if  the  appLication  upon  which  it  was  i.ssued 
is  found  to  contain  sufficient  information  as  to  the  natuiaUzalion  of  the  applicant.  Passports  are  not  renewed  by  tlie 
Department,  but  a  person  abroad  holding  a  passport  issued  by  the  Department  may  have  it  renewed  for  a  period  of  six 
months  upon  presenting  it  to  a  diplomatic  or  principal  consular  officer  of  the  United  States,  when  it  is  about  to  expire, 
with  a  sworn  statement  of  the  names  of  the  countries  which  he  expects  to  visit  and  the  objects  of  his  visits  thereto. 
No  passport  sliall  be  renewed  more  than  twice. 

12.  Wife,  minor  children,  and  servants. — ^When  the  applicant  is  accompanied  by  his  wife,  minor  cluldren,  and  maid- 
servant, who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  state  the  fact,  giving  their  names  in  full,  the  dates 
and  places  of  their  Ijirtlis,  and  the  allegiance  of  the  servant,  when  one  passport  will  suffice  for  all.  For  a  man-ser\-ant 
or  any  other  person  in  the  party  a  separate  passjjort  will  be  recpiired.  \  woman's  pas,si>ort  may  include  her  minor 
children  and  maid-servant  under  th<!  above-named  conditions. 

(The  term  "maid-servant"  does  not  include  a  governess,  tutor,  pupil,  comjianion,  or  person  liolding  like  relation 
to  the  applicant  for  a  j)assport.) 

13.  Titles. — Professional  an<l  other  titles  will  not  he  Inserted  in  ])a.ssports.  ^ 

14.  Blank  forms  of  application. — They  will  be  furnislied  by  the  Depiu'tment  free  of  cliarge  to  persons  who  desire  to 
apply  for  passports.     Supplies  of  blank  applications  are  also  furnished  by  the  Department  to  clerks  of  courts. 

15.  Address. — Communications  should  be  addressed  to  the  Department  of  Stivte,  Bureau  of  Citizenship,  and  each 
communication  should  give  the  ])()st-office  address  of  the  person  to  whom  the  answer  is  to  be  directed. 

16.  Additional  regulation. — The  Secretary  of  State  is  authorized  to  make  regulations  on  the  subject  of  issuing  and 
granting  passports  additional  to  these  rules  and  not  Inconsistent  with  them. 

To  become  effective  Februiu-y  1,  1915. 

WooDHow  Wilson. 
The  White  House,  January  12,  1915. 


[Inclosuro  2.J 

Notice  Concerning  Passi'Ort.s  and  Rkoistration  in  Consulates. 

signature  op  passports. 

The  i)erson  to  whom  this  passport  is  issued  is  hereby  directed  to  affix  his  signature  thereon,  in  the  space  designated, 
Immediately  upon  its  receijjt. 

visa  op  passport. 

The  Dei)artmenl  understands  tliat  it  is  necessary  to  have  passports  visaed  for  entry  Into  the  following  countries,  by 
diplomatic  or  consular  officers  thereof:  Russia,  Turkey,  Italy,  Germany,  Roumania,  and  Servia. 

P;i.ssports  of  American  citizens  going  to  Russia  should  be  vis;ied  by  a  Ru8.sian  considar  officer,  preferalily  In  the 
United  States,  at  San  Francisco,  Clilcago,  or  New  York,  City.  One  who  desires  to  have  the  vlsii  of  his  passport  for 
Russia  cover  a  period  longer  than  tliree  months  should  make  a  special  request  to  that  effect. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Turkey  should  be  visaed  by  a  Turkish  consular  officer,  either  In  the  United  States,  at  San 
Franci.sco,  Clilcago,  Boston,  or  New  York  City,  or  at  a  Turkish  consulate  abroad. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Italy  should  be  visaed  by  an  Italian  consuUu'  officer,  preferably  In  the  United  States. 

Passports  to  be  used  In  German)-  should  be  \-isaed  by  a  German  diplomatic  or  consular  officer,  preferably  in  the 
United  States. 

Passports  to  be  used  In  Servia  should  be  visaed  by  the  Servian  Consul-General  in  New  York  City,  or  by  a  diplomatic 
or  consular  officer  of  Servia  in  some  foreign  country. 
4550°— 15 ^U 


162  PASSPORT  REftULATlONS. 

Passporta  to  bo  used  in  Roumanla  nhould  bo  visaed  l)y  a  Roumanian  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  in  some  foreign 
country,  there  being  no  diplomatic  or  consular  officers  of  Roumania  in  the  United  States. 

The  Department  understands  that  it  is  advisable  to  have  passporta  visaed  by  consular  officers  of  the  following  coun- 
tries, for  use  therein:  AuHtria-Hungary,  Denmark,  and  l-'raiicc;  and  Ihat  it  is  advisable  to  Ikivc  them  visaed  for  use  in 
Spain  by  the  Spanish  Ambassador  in  Wasluiigton  or  a  Spanish  consul  in  New  York  City,  New  Orleans,  or  San  Francisco. 
It  is  deemed  advisiible  for  persons  going  to  Bulgaria  to  have  their  passports  visaed  by  the  Consul-General  of  Bulgaria  in 
New  York  ("ity,  or  by  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  Bulf,'aria  in  some  foreign  country. 

The  Department  is  informed  that  persons  entering  British  territory  are  required  to  bear  passports,  but  that  it  is 
not  necessary  that  they  should  be  \i8aed. 

American  citizens  who  exjject  to  visit  countries  of  Europe  other  than  those  named  above  should  inquire  of  diplo- 
matic or  consular  officers  thereof  concerning  the  necessity  or  advisability  of  ha^■ing  their  passports  visaed. 

The  Department  of  State  does  not  act  as  the  intermediary  in  procuring  visas.  Application  should  be  made  by  the 
holder  of  the  passport  directly  to  the  diplomatic  or  considar  officer. 

EXPIRATION   AND   HENEWAL   OP  PASSPORT. 

A  passport  issued  by  the  Department  is  valid  for  six  months  only,  but  may  be  extended  when  about  to  expire  by 
a  diplomatic  or  principal  consular  officer  of  the  United  States.  No  passport  shall  be  extended  more  than  twice.  A 
person  sojourning  abroad  whose  passport  has  finally  expired,  after  having  been  twice  renewed,  should  apply  for  a 
new  passport  through  a  diplomatic  or  consular  office. 

AMENDMENT   OP  PASSPORT. 

When  the  holder  of  a  passport  finds  it  necessary,  after  leaving  the  United  States,  to  ^dsit  a  country  or  countries 
not  named  in  the  passport,  he  may  have  it  amended  by  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  the  United  States. 

REGISTRATION    IN   CONSULATES. 

American  citizens  who  expect  to  make  a  prolonged  stay  in  any  foreign  country  shoTild  apply  for  consular  registration 
to  the  American  cons  .date  in  that  country  at  or  nearest  the  place  in  which  they  are  sojourning. 
Department  of  State,  Washington,  February  8,  1915. 


[Inclosure  3.] 
NOTICE   TO   AMERICAN   CITIZENS   WHO   CONTEMPLATE   VISITING   BELLIGERENT  COUNTRIES. 

All  American  citizens  who  go  abroad  should  cany  American  passports,  and  should  inquire  of  diplomatic  or  consular 
officers  of  the  countries  which  they  expect  to  visit  concerning  the  necessity  of  having  the  passports  \-isaed  therefor. 

American  citizens  are  ad\'ised  to  avoid  ^-isiting  unnecessarily  countries  which  are  at  war.  and  particidarly  to  avoid, 
if  possible,  passing  through  or  from  a  belligerent  country  to  a  country  which  is  at  war  therewith. 

It  is  especially  important  that  naturalized  American  citizens  refrain  from  visiting  their  countries  of  origin  and 
countries  which  are  at  war  therewith. 

As  belligerent  countries  are  accustomed,  for  self-protection,  to  scrutinize  carefully  aliens  who  enter  their  terri- 
tories, American  citizens  who  find  it  necessary  to  visit  such  countries  should,  as  a  matter  of  precaution  and  in  order 
to  a  v'oid  detention ,  provide  themsel  ves  with  letters  or  other  documents,  in  addition  to  their  passports ,  showing  definitely 
the  objects  of  their  visits.  In  particular  it  is  advisable  for  persons  who  go  to  belligerent  countries  as  representatives 
of  commercial  concerns  to  carry  letters  of  identification  or  introduction  from  such  concerns. 

American  citizens  sojourning  in  countries  which  are  at  war  are  warned  to  refrain  from  any  conduct  or  utterances 
which  might  be  considered  offensive  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of  strict  neutrality. 

W.  J.  BSYAN. 

Department  op  State,  Washington,  November  17,  1914. 

Note. — An  application  for  a  passport  must  be  accompanied  by  duplicate  unmounted  photographs  of  the  applicant, 
not  larger  than  3  by  3  inches  in  size,  one  affixed  to  the  back  of  the  application  by  the  clerk  of  court  before  whom  it 
is  executed,  with  an  impression  of  the  seal  of  the  court;  the  other  to  be  affixed  to  the  passport  by  the  Department. 


Notice  to  American  citizens  who  contemplate  visiting  helligerent  countries. 

All  American  citizens  who  go  abroad  should  carry  American  passports,  and  should  inquire 
of  diplomatic  or  con.stilar  officers  of  the  countries  which  they  expect  to  visit  concerning  the 
necessity  of  having  the  passports  visaed  therefor. 

American  citizens  are  advised  to  avoid  visiting  unnecessarily  coimtries  which  are  at  war, 
and  particularly  to  avoid,  if  possible,  passing  through  or  from  a  belUgerent  comitry  to  a  countrj' 
which  is  at  war  therewith. 

It  is  especially  important  that  naturalized  American  citizens  refrain  from  visiting  their 
countries  of  origin  and  countries  which  are  at  war  therewith. 

It  is  beheved  that  governments  of  coimtries  which  are  in  a  state  of  war  do  not  welcome 
aliens  who  are  traveling  merely  for  curiosity  or  pleasure.  Under  the  passport  regtdations 
prescribed  by  the  President  January  12,  1915,  passports  issued  by  this  Government  contain 
statements  of  the  names  of  coimtries  which  the  holders  expect  to  visit  and  the  objects  of  their 
visits  thereto.  The  Department  does  not  deem  it  appropriate  or  advisable  to  issue  passports 
to  persons  who  contemplate  visitmg  belligerent  comitries  merely  for  "pleasure,"  "recreation," 
"tourmg, "  "sight-seeing,"  etc. 

As  belligerent  countries  arc  accustomed,  for  self-protection,  to  scrutinize  carefidly  aliens 
who  enter  theii-  tenitories,  American  citizens  who  find  it  necessary  to  visit  such  comitries  sliuiild, 


i 


PASSPOBT  REGULATIONS.  163 

as  a  matter  of  precaution  and  in  order  to  avoid  detention,  provide  themselv&s  with  letters  or 

other  documents,  m  addition  to  their  passports,  showing  definitely  the  objects  of  their  visits. 

In  ])arti(-ular  it  is  advisable  for  persons  who  go  to  belligerent  countries  as  representatives  of 

connnercial  <!on(;erns  to  carry  letters  of  identification  or  introduction  from  such  concerns. 

American  citizens  sojourning  in  countries  which  are  at  war  are  warned  to  refrain  from 

any  conduct  or  utterances  which  might  bo  considered  offensive  or  contrary  to  the  principles 

of  strict  neutrahty. 

W.  J.  Bryan. 
Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  17, 1915. 


Notice  concerning  passports  and  registration  in  consulates. 

I  SIGNATXmE   OF  PASSPORT. 

The  person  to  whom  this  passport  is  issued  is  hereby  directed  to  affix  his  signature  thereon, 
in  the  space  designated,  immediately  upon  its  receipt. 

VISA    OP  PASSPORT. 

The  Department  understands  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  passports  visaed  for  entry  into 
the  followmg  countries,  by  diplomatic  or  consular  officers  thereof:  Russia,  Turkey,  Italy,  Ger- 
many, France,  Austria-Himgary,  Roumania,  and  Servia. 

Passports  of  American  citizens  going  to  Russia  should  be  visaed  by  a  Russian  consular 
officer,  preferably  in  the  United  States,  at  San  Francisco,  Chicago,  or  New  York  City.  One 
who  desires  to  have  the  visa  of  his  passport  for  Russia  cover  a  period  longer  than  three  months 
should  make  a  special  request  to  that  effect. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Turkey  should  be  visaed  by  a  Turkish  consular  officer,  either  in 
the  United  States,  at  San  Francisco,  Chicago,  Boston,  or  New  York  City,  or  at  a  Turkish  con- 
sulate abroad. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Italy  should  be  visaed  by  an  Italian  consular  officer,  preferably 
in  the  United  States. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Germany  should  be  visaed  by  a  German  diplomatic  or  consular 
officer,  preferably  in  the  United  States.  Wives  and  cliildren  entering  Germany  must  bear 
individual  passports. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  France  should  be  visaed  by  a  French  diplomatic  or  consular  officer, 
preferably  in  the  United  States. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Austria-Hungary  should  be  visaed  by  an  Austro-Hungarian  dip- 
lomatic or  consular  officer,  preferably  in  the  United  States. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Servia  should  be  visaed  by  the  Servian  Consul  General  in  New 
York  City  or  by  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  Servia  in  some  foreign  country. 

Passports  to  be  used  in  Roumania  should  be  visaed  by  a  Roumanian  diplomatic  or  con- 
sular officer  in  some  foreign  country,  there  being  no  diplomatic  or  consular  officers  of  Roumania 
in  the  United  States. 

The  Department  imderstands  that  it  is  advisable  to  have  passports  visaed  by  a  consular 
officer  of  Denmark  for  use  therein;  and  that  it  is  advisable  to  have  them  visaed  for  use  in 
Spain  by  the  Spanish  Ambassador  in  Washington  or  a  Spanish  consul  in  New  York  City,  New 
Orleans,  or  San  Francisco.  It  is  deemed  advisable  for  persons  going  to  Bulgaria  to  have  their 
passports  visaed  by  the  Consul  General  of  Bulgaria  in  New  York  City  or  by  a  diplomatic  or 
consular  officer  of  Bidgaria  in  some  foreign  country. 

The  Department  is  informed  that  persons  entering  British  territory  are  required  to  bear 
passports,  but  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  they  should  be  visaed. 

American  citizens  who  expect  to  visit  countries  of  Europe  other  than  those  named  above 
should  inquire  of  diplomatic  or  consular  officers  thereof  concerning  the  necessity  or  advisabiUty 
of  having  their  passports  visaed. 

The  Department  of  State  does  not  act  as  the  intermediary  in  prociiring  visas.  AppUcation 
should  be  made  by  the  holder  of  the  passport  directly  to  the  diplomatic  or  consular  officer. 

EXPIRATION    AND    RENEWAL    OF    PASSPORT. 

A  passpoit  issued  by  the  Department  is  valid  for  six  months  only,  but  may  be  extended 
when  about  to  expire  by  a  diplomatic  or  principal  consular  officer  of  the  United  States.  No 
passport  shall  bo  extended  more  than  twice.  A  person  sojourning  abroad  whose  passport  has 
finally  expired,  after  havmg  been  twice  renewed,  sliould  apply  for  a  new  passport  tlu-ough  a 
diplomatic  or  consular  office. 


164  PASSPORT  BEGULATI0N9, 

AMENDMENT    OF   PASSPORT. 

When  the  holder  of  a  passport  finds  it  necessary,  after  leaving  the  United  States,  to  visit 
a  country  or  countries  not  named  in  the  passport,  ho  may  have  it  amended  hy  a  diplomatic 
or  consular  ofTicor  of  the  United  States. 

REGISTKATION    IX    CONSULATES. 

American  citizens  who  expect  to  make  a  prolonged  stay  in  any  foreign  country  should 
apply  for  consular  registration  to  the  xVmerican  consulate  in  that  country  at  or  nearest  the 
place  in  which  they  are  sojourning. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  20,  1915. 


Rules  governing  the  granting  and  issuing  of  passports  to  those  who  have  declared  their  intention  to 

become  citizens  of  the  United  Stat-es.^ 

1.  The  first  section  of  the  act  approved  March  2,  1907,  "m  reference  to  the  expatriation  of 
citizens  and  their  protection  abroad,"  provides  "That  the  Secretary  of  State  shall  be  authorized, 
in  his  discretion,  to  issue  passports  to  persons  not  citizens  of  the  United  States  as  follows: 
Where  any  person  has  made  a  declaration  of  intention  to  become  such  a  citizen  as  provided 
by  law  and  has  resided  in  the  United  States  for  three  years,  a  passport  may  be  issued  to  him 
entitling  lihu  to  the  protection  of  this  Government  in  anj'  foreign  country:  Provided,  That 
such  passport  shall  not  be  valid  for  more  than  six  months  and  shall  not  be  renewed,  and  that 
such  passport  shall  not  entitle  the  holder  to  the  protection  of  this  Government  in  the  country 
of  which  ho  was  a  citizen  prior  to  makmg  such  declaration  of  intention." 

2.  This  section  is  not  intended  to  confer  upon  persons  who  have  only  declared  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens  a  general  right  to  receive  passports  upon  application.  Such  passports 
will  be  issued  only  when  it  is  affirmatively  shown  to  the  Secretary  of  State  that  some  special 
exigency  requires  the  temporary  absence  of  the  apphcant  from  the  United  States,  and  that 
without  such  absence  the  applicant  would  be  subjected  to  special  hardship  or  injury.  Under 
this  law  passports  can  not  be  issued  to  declarants  who  intend  visiting  theu"  native  lands. 

3.  Such  passports  wiU  not  be  issued  to  those  who  have  made  the  declaration  of  intention 
and  who  have  failed,  through  their  own  neglect,  to  complete  their  intention  and  secure  natu- 
ralization as  citizens  of  the  United  States;  nor  to  those  who  may  make  the  declaration  of  inten- 
tion in  order  to  secure  passports  and  leave  the  United  States,  nor  shall  more  than  one  such 
passport  be  issued  to  any  applicant. 

4.  It  is  therefore  ordered  that  before  a  passport  shall  be  issued  to  anyone  who  has  made 
the  declaration  of  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  the  following  facts  shall 
be  estabhshed  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  State: 

(a)  That  the  appUcant  has  resided  in  the  United  States  for  at  least  three  years  as  provided 
by  law. 

(6)  That  he  is  not  yet  ehgible  mider  the  law  for  final  naturtdization. 

(c)  That  at  least  six  months  have  elapsed  since  the  apphcant's  declaration  of  intention. 

(d)  That  the  apphcant  has  not  previously  apphed  for  and  obtained  a  similar  passport 
from  this  Department. 

(e)  That  a  special  and  imperative  exigency  exists  requiring  the  absence  of  tlie  apphcant 
from  the  United  States.  The  burden  of  proof  will,  in  each  case,  be  upon  the  applicant  to  show 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  State  that  there  is  a  necessity  for  liis  absence.  The 
statement  as  to  such  necessity  must  be  detailed  and  supported  by  satisfactory  corroborative 
evidence.  Under  this  rule  passports  will  not  be  granted  to  persons  who  wish  to  go  abroad  as 
commercial  travelers. 

(/)  That  the  apphcant  has  not  apphed  for  or  obtained  a  passport  from  any  other  Govern- 
ment since  he  declared  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

5.  Applications  must  be  made  in  the  forni  of  an  affidavit  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  Blank 
forms  of  application  are  not  furnished  by  the  Department. 

6.  The  affidavit  must  be  executed  before  a  clerk  of  a  Federal  or  State  court  within  the  juris- 
diction of  which  the  applicant  or  his  witnesses  reside  and  the  seal  of  the  court  must  be  affixed. 

7.  If  the  apphcant  signs  by  mark,  two  attesting  witnesses  to  his  signature  are  requu'cd. 

8.  The  apphcant  is  required  to  state  the  date  and  place  of  his  birth,  the  date  of  his  emigra- 
tion to  this  country,  his  occupation  and  the  place  of  liis  permanent  residence,  the  name  of  the 
court  before  which  he  declared  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  the 

1  Passports  are  not  issued  to  declarants  who  are  natives  of  countries  whieli  are  at  war,  nor  to  decbirauts  who  intend  to  visit  belligerent  countries. 


PASSPORT   REGULATIONS.  165 

dato  of  tho  clcclarRtion,  where  ho  intends  to  travel,  how  long  he  expects  to  remain  in  each  foreign 
country,  for  what  purpose  he  is  proceeding  abroad,  the  circumstances  which  make  his  ahsonco 
necessary,  that  he  intends  to  return  to  the  United  States,  and  tho  prol)ahle  (hiration  of  his 
absence  therefrom.     No  fee  is  prescribed  by  law  for  the  issunnce  of  a  declarant's  passport. 

9.  If  any  previous  application  for  a  similar  passport  has  been  denied  by  the  Department, 
this  fact  must  be  stated  by  the  applicant. 

Tho  application  must  be  accompanied  by  a  description  of  tho  person  applying  and  should 

state  the  following  particulars,  namely:  Age, ;  stature, feet inches  (Eng- 

hsh  measure);  forehead, ;  eyes,  ;  nose,  ;  mouth,  ;  chin,  ; 

hair, ;  complexion, ;  face, . 

The  application  must  also  be  accompanied  by  duplicate  photograplis  of  the  appli<'ant,  on 
thin  paper,  umnountcd,  and  not  larger  in  size  than  three  by  three  inches.  One  must  be  attaclied 
to  the  application  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  before  whom  it  is  made,  with  an  impression  of  the 
seal  of  tl.ei  court  so  jilaced  as  to  cover  part  of  the  photograph  but  not  the  features,  and  the 
other  sent  loose,  to  be  attached  to  the  passport  by  the  Department.  Photographs  on  card- 
board or  postcards  will  not  be  accepted. 

The  apphcant's  declaration  of  intention  must  be  fonvardcd  with  his  application,  which 
must  also  be  accompanied  by  two  supporting  affidavits  from  citizens  of  the  United  States,  who 
shall  state  that  the  applicant  is  the  person  he  represents  himself  to  be,  how  long  they  have 
known  him,  and  that  the  facts  stated  in  his  affidavit  are  true  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and 
belief. 

A  passport  may  be  granted  to  a  declarant  under  the  statutory  provision  quoted  above 
for  purposes  of  identification  and  ]>rotection  in  foreign  couri":-!es,  otlicr  than  his  country  of 
origin,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  reentry  into  this  country.  iVll  matters  relating 
to  unmigration  being  under  the  supervision  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  any  inquiries  con- 
cerning the  right  to  reenter  the  United  States  should  be  addressed  to  that  Department. 

W.  J.  Bkyan. 

Department  of  State, 

WasMru^ton,  June  1 ,  1.915. 


PART  XX. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  RESTRAINTS  ON  COMMERCE. 


167 


CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  RESTRAINTS  ON  COMMERCE. 


File  No.  763.72/1830. 

The  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Gerard.^ 

[Translation.] 

Berlin,  May  28,  1915. 

The  iindpi'signed  has  the  honor  to  mako  tho  followan"  roply  to  the  note  of  His  ExocIlcMicy, 
Mr.  James  W.  Gerard,  Anibassa(h)r  of  tho  United  Staters  of  iVmerica,  (hited  tlie  fiftcuinth  nistant, 
on  the  subject  of  tho  impairment  of  many  American  interests  by  tlie  German  submarine  war. 

Tho  Imperial  Government  has  subjected  tho  statements  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  a  careful  examination  and  has  tho  lively  wish  on  its  part  also  to  contribute  in  a  con- 
vincing and  friendly  manner  to  clear  up  any  misunderstandings  which  may  have  entered  into 
the  relations  of  the  two  Governments  through  the  events  mentioned  by  tho  American 
Government. 

With  regard  firstly  to  tho  cases  of  the  American  steamers  CusMng  and  GuljligTit,  the 
American  Embassy  has  already  been  informed  that  it  is  far  from  the  German  Government  to 
have  any  intention  of  ordering  attacks  by  submarines  or  flyers  on  neutral  vessels  in  tho  zone 
which  have  not  been  guilty  of  any  hostile  act;  on  the  contrary  the  most  explicit  instructions 
have  been  repeatedly  given  the  German  armed  forces  to  avoid  attacking  such  vessels.  If 
neutral  vessels  have  come  to  grief  tlirough  the  German  submarine  war  during  the  past  few 
months  by  mistake,  it  is  a  question  of  isolated  and  exceptional  cases  wliich  are  traceable  to  the 
misuse  of  flags  by  the  British  Government  in  connection  with  carelessness  or  suspicious  actions 
on  the  part  of  the  captains  of  the  vessels.  In  all  cases  where  a  neutral  vessel  through  no  fault 
of  its  ovm  has  come  to  grief  tluough  the  German  submarine  or  flyers  according  to  the  facts  aa 
ascertained  by  the  German  Government,  this  Government  has  expressed  its  regret  at  tho 
unfortunate  occun-ence  and  promised  indemnification  wliere  the  facts  justified  it.  The  German 
Government  will  treat  tho  cases  of  the  American  steamers  Gushing  and  GulJligJit  according  to 
the  same  principles.  An  investigation  of  these  cases  is  in  progress.  Its  results  wiU  be  com- 
mvmicatod  to  tho  Embassy  shortly.  The  investigation  might,  if  tliought  desirable,  be  supple- 
mented by  an  International  Commission  of  Inquiry,  pursuant  to  Title  Three  of  The  Hague  Con- 
vention of  October  18,  1907,  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  thsputos. 

In  the  case  of  the  sinking  of  the  English  steamer  Falaba,  tho  commander  of  the  Gorman 
submarine  had  the  intention  of  allowing  passengers  and  crew  ample  opportunity  to  save 
themselves. 

It  was  not  until  the  captain  disregarded  the  order  to  lay  to  and  took  to  flight,  sending  up 
rocket  signals  for  help,  that  the  German  commander  ord(>rod  tho  crew  and  passengers  by  signals 
and  megaphone  to  leave  the  ship  Ndthin  10  minut(>s.  As  a  matter  of  fact  he  allowed  them  23 
minutes  and  did  not  fh'e  the  torpedo  until  suspicious  steamers  were  iiuirying  to  the  aid  of  the 
Falaha. 

With  regard  to  the  loss  of  life  when  the  British  passenger  steamer  Lusitania  was  sunk,  the 
German  Government  has  already  expressed  its  deep  regret  to  the  neutral  Governments  con- 
cerned that  nationals  of  those  countries  lost  tlieir  lives  on  that  occsision.  Tlie  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment must  state  for  the  rest  tho  impression  that  certain  important  facts  most  direci.ly 
coimected  with  tho  sinking  of  tho  Lusitania  may  have  escaped  tho  attention  of  tho  Government 
of  tho  United  States.  It  therefore  considers  it  necessary  in  the  interest  of  the  clear  and  full 
understanding  aimed  at  by  either  Government  primarily  to  convince  itself  that  the  reports 
of  the  facts  which  are  before  tlie  two  Governments  are  complete  and  in  agreement. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  proceeds  on  the  assimiption  that  the  Lusitania  is 
to  be  considered  as  an  ordinary  unarmed  merchant  vessel.  The  Imperial  Government  begs 
in  this  connection  to  point  out  that  the  Lusitanta  was  one  of  the  largest  and  fastest  English 
commerce  steamers,  constructed  with  Government  funds  as  auxihary  cruisers,  and  is  expressly 
included  m  the  navy  list  published  by  British  Admindty.  It  is  moreover  loiowai  to  the 
Imperial  Government  from  reliable  information  furnished  by  its  officials  and  neutral  passengers 
that  for  some  time  practically  aU  the  more  valuable  Enghsh  merchant  vessels  have  been 
provided  with  guns,  ammunition,  and  other  weapons,  and  reinforced  with  a  crew  specially 

1  For  earlier  correspondence,  see  Diplomatic  Correspondence  with  Belligerent  Governments  relating  to  Neutral  Kiehls  and  Commerce.    Series 
U.  No.  29,  pp.  39,  et  seq. 

169 


170  KESTRAINTS   ON   COMMERCE. 

practiced  in  manning  guns.  According  to  reports  at  hand  here,  the  Lusitania  when  s^he  left 
New  York  undoubtedl}^  had  guns  on  board  which  were  moimted  under  decks  and  masked. 

The  Imperial  Government  furthermore  has  the  honor  to  direct  the  particular  attention 
of  the  American  GoTcrnmcnt  to  the  fact  that  the  British  Admiralty  by  a  secret  instruction  of 
February  of  this  year  advised  the  British  merchant  marine  not  only  to  seek  protection  behind 
neutral  flags  and  markings,  but  even  when  so  disguised  to  attack  German  submarines  by 
ramming  them.  High  rewards  have  been  ofTored  by  the  British  Government  as  a  special 
incentive  for  the  destruction  of  the  submarines  bj-  merchant  vessels,  and  such  rewards  have 
already  been  paid  out.  In  view  of  these  facts,  which  are  satisfactorily  known  to  it,  the 
Imperial  Government  is  unable  to  consider  English  merchant  vessels  any  longer  as  "undefended 
territory"  in  the  zone  of  maritime  war  designated  by  the  Admiralty  StafiP  of  the  Imperial 
German  Navy,  the  German  commanders  are  consequently  no  longer  in  a  position  to  observe 
the  rules  of  capture  otherwise  usual  and  with  which  they  invariably  complied  before  this. 
Lastly,  the  Imperial  Government  must  special!}"  point  out  that  on  her  last  trip  the  Lusitania, 
as  on  earlier  occasions,  had  Canadian  troops  and  munitions  on  board,  including  no  less  than 
5,400  cases  of  ammmiition  destined  for  the  destruction  of  brave  German  soldiers  who  are  fulfilling 
with  self-sacrifice  and  devotion  their  duty  in  the  service  of  the  Fatherland.  The  German 
Government  believes  that  it  acts  in  just  self-defense  when  it  seeks  to  protect  the  lives  of  its 
soldiers  by  destroying  ammunition  destmed  for  the  enemy  with  the  means  of  war  at  its  com- 
mand. The  Enghsh  steamship  company  must  have  been  aware  of  the  dangers  to  which  pas- 
sengers on  board  the  Lusitania  were  exposed  under  the  circumstances.  In  taking  them  on 
board  in  spite  of  this  the  company  quite  deliberately  tried  to  use  the  lives  of  American  citizens 
as  protection  for  the  ammmiition  carried,  and  violated  the  clear  provisions  of  American  laws 
which  expressly  prohibit,  and  provide  punishment  for,  the  carrying  of  passengers  on  ships 
which  have  explosives  on  board.  The  company  thereby  wantonly  caused  the  death  of  so  many 
passengers.  According  to  the  express  report  of  the  submarine  commander  concerned,  which 
is  further  confirmed  by  all  other  reports,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  rapid  sinking  of  the 
Lusitania  was  primarily  due  to  the  explosion  of  the  cargo  of  ammunition  caused  by  the  torpedo. 
Otherwise,  in  all  human  probabiUty,  the  passengers  of  tlie  Lusitania  woidd  have  been  saved. 

The  Imperial  Government  holds  the  facts  recited  above  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to 
recommend  them  to  a  carefid  examination  by  the  American  Government.  The  Imperial 
Government  begs  to  reserve  a  fuial  statement  of  its  position  with  regard  to  the  demands  made 
in  connection  with  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania  imtil  a  reply  is  received  from  the  American 
Government,  and  believes  that  it  shoidd  recall  here  that  it  took  note  with  satisfaction  of 
the  proposals  of  good  offices  submitted  bj-  the  j\jnerican  Government  m  Berlin  and  London 
with  a  view  to  paving  the  way  for  a  modus  vivendi  for  the  conduct  of  maritime  war  between 
Germany  and  Great  Britain.  The  Imperial  Government  furnished  at  that  time  ample  evi- 
dence of  its  good  win  by  its  willingness  to  consider  these  proposals.  The  realization  of  these 
proposals  failed,  as  is  known,  on  accoxmt  of  their  rejection  by  the  Goverrmient  of  Great  Britain. 

The  undersigned  requests  His  Excellency,  the  Ambassador,  to  bring  the  above  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  American  Government  and  avads  himseK  of  the  opportunity  to  renew,  etc, 

VON  Jagow. 


File  No.  300.115G95/31.] 

The  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Amiassador  Gerard. 

[Translation.] 

Bekltn,  June  1,  1915. 

With  reference  to  the  note  of  May  28,  the  imdersigned  has  the  honor  to  inform  His 
Excellency,  the  Ambassador  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Mr.  James  VT.  Gerard,  that  the 
examination  tmdertaken  on  the  part  of  the  German  Government  concerning  the  cases  of  the 
American  steamers  GulfligTit  and  Gushing  has  led  to  the  following  conclusions: 

In  regard  to  the  attack  on  the  steamer  Gxdjlight,  the  commander  of  a  German  submarine 
saw  on  the  afternoon  of  May  1,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Scilly  Islands,  a  large  merchant  steamer 
coming  toward  him,  which  was  accompanied  by  two  small  vessels.  These  latter  took  up  such 
a  position  in  relation  to  the  steamer  that  they  formed  a  regvdation  safeguard  against  sub- 
marines; one  of  them,  moreover,  had  a  wireless  apparatus,  which  is  not  as  a  rule  usual  with 
small  vessels.  From  this  it  was  evidently  a  case  of  English  convoy  vessels.  Since  such  ves- 
sels are  regularl}^  armed,  the  submarine  coidd  not  approach  the  steamer  on  the  surface  of  the 
water  without  running  the  danger  of  destruction.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  to  be  assimied 
that  the  steamer  was  of  considerable  value  to  the  British  Government  since  it  was  so  particu- 
larly guarded.  The  commander  could  see  no  neutral  markings  on  it  of  any  kind — that  is,  dis- 
tinctive marks  painted  on  the  freeboard,  recognizable  at  a  distance,  such  as  are  now  usual  on 


RESTRAINTS   ON   COMMERCE.  171 

neutral  ships  in  tho  English  zone  of  naval  warfare.  In  consequence,  he  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion from  all  tho  circumstances  that  he  had  to  deal  with  ini  English  steamer  and  attacked 
submorged.  Tho  torpedo  canui  in  tho  inuncdiale  n('ighl)()rho()d  of  one  of  tho  convoy  ships, 
which  at  onco  rapidly  approached  the  point  of  firing,  so  that  tho  submarine  was  forced  to  go  to 
a  great  depth  to  avoid  being  rammed;  tho  conclusion  of  the  command(>r  that  an  English  con- 
voy ship  was  concerned  was  in  this  way  confirmed.  That  tlie  attacked  steamer  carried  the 
American  flag  was  first  observed  at  tho  moment  of  firing  the  shot.  Tho  fact  that  the  steam- 
ship was  pui-suing  a  course  which  led  neither  to  nor  from  America  was  a  further  reason  why 
it  (hd  not  occur  to  tho  commander  of  tho  submarine  that  ho  had  to  deal  with  an  American 
stoiunship. 

Upon  scrutiny  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  occurrence  described,  the  German  Government 
has  become  con\nnccd  that  the  attacked  steamship  was  actually  the  American  steamship 
Gulfliglit.  According  to  the  attendant  circumstances  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  tho  attack  is 
not  to  bo  attributed  to  the  fault  of  tho  commander,  but  to  an  unfortunate  accident.  Tho 
German  Government  expresses  its  regrets  to  the  Government  of  the  Uiuted  States  concerning 
th's  incident  and  declares  itself  ready  to  furnish  full  recompense  for  tho  damage  thereby  sus- 
tained by  American  citizens.  It  begs  to  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment to  present  a  statement  of  this  damage,  or,  if  doubts  may  arise  over  individual  points,  to 
designate  an  expert,  who  would  have  to  determine,  together  with  a  German  expert,  the  amount 
of  the  damage. 

It  has  not  yet  been  possible  by  means  of  an  inquiry  fully  to  clear  up  the  case  of  the 
American  steamship  Cushing.  According  to  the  official  reports  available,  onl}^  one  merchant 
steamship  was  attacked  by  a  German  flying  machine  in  the  vicinity  of  Nordliind  Lightship. 
Tho  German  aviator  considi^red  the  vessel  as  hostile,  and  was  forced  to  consider  it  as  such 
because  it  carr'cd  no  flag  and  also  because  of  no  further  recognizable  neutral  markings.  The 
attack,  which  was  carried  into  effect  by  means  of  four  bombs,  was  of  course  not  aimed  at  any 
American  ship. 

That,  however,  the  ship  attacked  was  the  American  steamer  Cushing  is  not  impossible, 
considering  the  time  and  place  of  the  occurrence;  nevertheless  the  German  Govenmient 
accordingly  requests  the  American  Government  to  communicate  to  it  the  material  which  has 
been  submitted  for  judgment,  in  order  that,  with  this  as  a  basis,  it  can  take  a  further  position 
in  regard  to  the  matter. 

Wliile  the  undersigned  leaves  it  to  the  Ambassador  to  bring  the  foregomg  to  the  immediate 
attention  of  his  Government,  he  takes  this  opportunity,  etc. 

VON  Jagow. 


File  No.  763.72/1830. 

The  Secretary  of  State  ad  interim  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.) 

Department  of  State, 

WasJiington,  June  9,  1915. 
You  are  instructed  to  deliver   textuaUy  the  following  note  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs: 

In  compliance  with  Your  Excellency's  request  I  did  not  fail  to  transmit  to  my  Government  immediately  upon 
their  receipt  your  note  of  May  28  in  ri'ply  to  my  nofi-  of  May  15,  and  your  supplementary  note  of  June  1,  setting  forth 
the  conclusions  so  far  as  reached  by  the  Imperial  (ierraan  Government  concerning  the  attacks  on  the  American  steamers 
Cushing  and  Guljlight.     I  am  now  instructed  by  my  Government  to  communicate  the  following  in  reply: 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  notes  with  gratification  the  full  recognition  by  the  Imperial  German  Gov- 
ernment, in  discussing  the  cases  of  the  Cttshini)  and  the  Guljlight,  of  tho  principle  of  the  freedom  of  all  parts  of  the 
open  sea  to  neutral  ships  and  the  frank  willingness  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  to  acknowledge  and  meet 
its  liability  where  the  fact  of  attack  upon  neutral  ships  "which  have  not  been  guilty  of  any  hostile  act"  by  German 
air  craft  or  vessels  of  war  is  satisfactorily  established ;  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  in  due  course  lay 
before  the  Imperial  German  Government,  as  it  requests,  full  information  concerning  the  attack  on  the  steamer  Cushing. 

With  regard  to  the  sinking  of  the  steamer  Fahihu.  by  which  an  American  citizen  lost  his  life,  the  Government 
of  tho  United  States  is  surprised  to  find  the  Imperial  German  Government  contending  that  an  effort  on  the  part  of  a 
merchantman  to  escape  capture  and  secure  assistance  alters  the  obligation  of  the  oflicer  seeking  to  make  the  capture 
in  respect  of  tho  safety  of  the  lives  of  those  on  board  the  merchantman,  although  the  vessel  had  ceased  her  attempt 
to  escape  when  torpedoed.  These  are  not  new  circumstances.  They  have  been  in  the  minds  of  statesmen  and  of 
international  jurists  throughout  the  development  of  naval  warfare,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  docs 
nut  understand  that  they  have  ever  been  held  to  alter  the  princii)lesof  humanity  upon  which  it  hasinsisted.  Nothing 
but  actual  forcible  resistance  or  continued  efforts  to  escape  by  flight  when  ordered  to  slop  for  the  jiurpose  of  visit  on 
tlie  jiart  of  the  merchantman  has  ever  been  held  to  forfeit  the  li\es  of  her  passengers  or  crew.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States,  however,  does  not  understand  that  the  Imperial  German  Government  is  seeking  in  this  case  to 
ri'lieve  itself  of  liability,  but  only  intends  to  set  forth  the  circumstances  which  led  the  commander  of  the  submarine 
to  allow  himself  to  be  hurried  into  the  course  which  he  took. 


172  RESTRAINTS   ON    COMMERCE. 

Your  Excellency's  note,  in  iHscuBsing  llio  liws  of  Aniciicuri  lives  remiltint,'  from  the  sinking  of  the  sleainship 
Lusitanui,  adverts  at  sorao  Icnglh  to  certain  information  which  the  Imperial  (icniian  (lovernmcMt  haw  received  wilh 
regard  to  the  character  and  outfit  of  that  veKsel,  and  Your  Excellency  exprcBses  the  fi'ar  that  this  information  may 
not  have  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Go\'ornmont  of  the  United  States.  It  is  stated  in  the  note  that  the 
Lusilania  was  undoubtedly  equipped  with  masked  guns,  8up[)Iied  with  trained  gunners  and  special  ammunition, 
transporting  troops  from  Canada,  carrying  a  cargo  not  permitted  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  to  a  vessel  also 
carrying  passengers,  and  serving,  in  virtual  effect,  as  an  auxiliary  to  the  naval  forces  of  Great  Britain.  Fortunately, 
these  are  matters  concerning  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  in  a  position  to  give  the  Imperial  German 
Government  oflicial  information.  Of  the  facts  alleged  in  Your  Excellency's  note,  if  true,  the  Government  of  the 
ITnited  States  would  have  been  bound  to  take  oflicial  cognizance  in  performing  its  recognized  duty  iis  a  neutral  power 
and  in  enforcing  its  national  laws.  It  was  its  duty  to  see  to  it  that  the  Lusilania  was  not  armed  for  offensive  action, 
that  she  was  not  serving  as  a  transport,  that  she  did  not  carry  a  cargo  prohibited  by  the  statutes  of  the  United  States, 
and  that,  if  in  fact  she  was  a  naval  vessel  of  Great  Brilian,  she  should  not  receive  clearance  as  a  merchantman;  and 
it  perlormed  that  duty  and  enforced  its  statutes  with  Bcrui>ulous  vigilance  through  its  regularly  constituted  officials. 
It  is  able,  therefore,  to  assure  the  Imperial  German  Government  that  it  hiis  been  misinformed.  If  the  Imperial  Ger- 
man (Government  should  deem  itself  to  be  in  possession  of  convincing  evidence  that  the  oflicials  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  did  not  perform  these  duties  with  thoroughness,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  sincerely 
hopes  that  it  will  submit  that  evidence  for  consideration. 

^Vhatever  maybe  the  contentions  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  regarding  the  carriage  of  contraband  of 
war  on  board  the  Lusitania  or  regarding  the  explosion  of  that  material  by  the  torpedo,  it  need  only  be  said  that  in  the 
view  of  this  Government  these  contentions  are  irrelevant  to  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  methods  used  by  the 
German  naval  authorities  in  sinking  the  vessel. 

But  the  sinking  of  passenger  ships  Involves  principles  of  humanity  which  throw  into  the  background  any  special 
cii'cumstances  of  detail  that  may  be  thoughu  to  affect  the  cases,  principles  which  lift  it,  as  the  Imperial  German  Gov- 
ernment will  no  doubt  be  quick  to  recognize  and  acknowledge,  out  of  the  class  of  ordinary  subjects  of  diplomatic 
discussion  or  of  international  controversy-.  Whatevci  be  the  other  facts  regarding  the  Lusitania,  the  principal  fact 
is  that  a  great  steamer,  primarily  and  chiefly  a  conveyance  for  passengers,  and  carrying  more  than  a  thousand  souls 
who  had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  conduct  of  the  war,  was  torpedoed  and  sunk  without  so  much  as  a  challenge  or  a  warning, 
and  that  men,  women,  and  children  were  sent  to  their  death  in  circiimstances  unparalleled  in  modern  warfare.  The 
fact  that  more  than  one  hundred  American  citizens  were  among  those  wno  perished  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  speak  of  these  things  and  once  more,  with  solemn  emphasis,  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Imperial  German  Government  to  the  grave  responsibility  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  conceives  that 
it  has  incuiTed  in  this  tragic  occurrence,  and  to  the  indisputable  principle  upon  which  that  responsibility  rests.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  contending  for  something  much  greater  than  mere  rights  of  property  or  privileges 
of  commerce.  It  is  contending  for  nothing  less  high  and  sacred  than  the  rights  of  humanity,  which  everj-  Government 
honors  itself  in  respecting  and  which  no  Government  is  justified  in  resigning  on  behalf  of  those  under  its  care  and 
authority.  Only  her  actual  resistance  to  capture  or  refusal  to  stop  when  ordered  to  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  visit  could 
have  afforded  the  commander  of  the  submarine  any  justification  for  so  much  as  putting  the  lives  of  those  on  board  the 
ship  in  jeopardy.  This  principle  the  Government  of  the  United  States  understands  the  explicit  instructions  issued 
on  August  3,  1914,  by  the  Imperial  German  Admiralty  to  its  commanders  at  sea  to  have  recognized  and  embodied 
as  do  the  naval  codes  of  all  other  nations,  and  upon  it  every  traveler  and  seaman  had  a  right  to  depend.  It  is  upon 
this  principle  of  humanity  as  well  as  upon  the  law  founded  upon  this  principle  that  the  United  States  must  stand. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  happy  to  observe  that  Your  Excellency's  note  closes  with  the  intimation 
that  the  Imperial  German  Government  is  wilUng,  now  as  before,  to  accept  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States  in  an 
attempt  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  by  which  the  character  and  conditions  of 
the  war  upon  the  sea  may  be  changed.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  would  consider  it  a  privilege  thus  to 
serve  its  friends  and  the  world.  It  stands  ready  at  any  time  to  convey  to  either  Government  any  intimation  or  sug- 
gestion the  other  may  be  willing  to  have  it  convey  and  cordially  invites  the  Imperial  German  Government  to  make 
use  of  its  services  in  this  way  at  its  convenience.  The  whole  world  is  concerned  in  anything  that  may  bring  about 
even  a  partial  accommodation  of  interests  or  in  any  way  mitigate  the  terrors  of  the  present  distre.t.'sing  conflict. 

In  the  meantime,  whatever  arrangement  may  happily  be  made  between  the  parties  to  the  war,  and  whatever 
may  in  the  opinion  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  have  been  the  provocation  or  the  circumstantial  justification 
for  the  past  acts  of  its  conmianders  at  sea,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  confidently  looks  to  see  the  justice 
and  humanity  of  the  Government  of  Germany  vindicated  in  all  cases  where  Americans  have  been  wronged  or  their 
rights  as  neutrals  invaded. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  therefore  very  earnestly  and  very  solemnly  renews  the  representations  of 
its  note  transmitted  to  the  Imperial  German  Government  on  the  tSth  of  May,  and  relies  in  these  representation^-  upon 
the  principles  of  humanity,  the  universally  recognized  understandings  of  international  law,  and  the  ancient  friend- 
ship of  the  German  nation. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  can  not  admit  that  the  proclamation  of  a  war  zone  from  which  neutral  shipa 
have  been  warned  to  keep  away  may  be  made  to  operate  as  in  any  degree  an  abbre\dation  of  the  rights  either  of  Ameri- 
can shipmasters  or  of  American  citizens  bound  on  lawful  errands  as  passengers  on  merchant  ships  of  belligerent  na- 
tionality. It  does  not  understand  the  Imperial  German  Government  to  question  those  rights.  It  understands  it,  also, 
to  accept  as  established  beyond  question  the  principle  that  the  hves  of  noncombatants  can  not  lawfully  or  rightfully 
be  put  in  jeopardy  by  the  capture  or  destruction  of  an  unresisting  merchantman,  and  to  recognize  the  obligation  to 
take  sufficient  ])recaution  to  ascertain  whether  a  siL'^iected  merchantman  is  in  fact  of  belligerent  nationality  or  is  in 
fact  carrying  contraband  of  war  under  a  neutral  flag.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  therefore  deems  it  rea- 
sonable to  expect  that  the  Imi)erial  German  Government  will  adopt  the  measures  neces.^ry  to  put  these  priix-iples 
into  practice  in  respect  of  the  safeguarding  of  American  lives  and  American  ships,  and  asks  for  assurances  that  this 

will  be  done. 

Robert  Lansing, 


RESTRAINTS  ON   COMMERCE.  173 

File  No.  763.72112/1259. 

Ambassador  W.  II.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State  ad  Interim. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  June  22,  1915. 
Lord  Crewe,  iii  charge  of  Foreign  Office  during  Sir  Edwiird  Grey's  temporary  absence, 
has  just  handed  me  a  printed  mcm.ror.Jum  dated  June  17.  It  is  not  an  answer  to  the  prin- 
ciples set  forth  in  the  note  transmitted  in  your  134.3  of  Marcli  30,  but  merely  an  explanation 
of  concrete  cases  and  the  regulations  under  which  they  are  dealt  with.  Foreign  Office  wishes 
to  arrange  for  simultaneous  publication  hero  and  in  Washington  morning  of  2.5th  iiist.  Please 
telegraph  if  this  date  is  satisfactory.     Memorandum  reads  as  follows: 

1.  His  Majesty's  Government  have  on  various  occasions,  and  notably  in  the  communication  which  was  addressed 
to  the  United  States  Ambassador  on  the  ]5tn  March  liist,  given  assurances  to  the  United  States  Government  that  they 
would  make  it  their  first  aim  to  minimize  the  inconvenience  which  nmst  inevitalily  ba  caused  to  neutral  commerce 
from  tbe  existence  of  a  state  of  war  at  sea,  and  in  particular  from  the  measures  taken  l^y  the  Allied  Governments  for 
the  restriction  of  the  enemies'  oversea  trade.  In  view  of  the  representation  and  complaints  made  to  this  department 
by  the  Ambassador  from  time  to  time  as  to  the  peculiar  hardships  alleged  to  have  been  wrongly  inflicted  on  American 
trade  and  shipping  Ijy  the  operation  of  those  measures.  His  Majesty's  Government  desire  to  offer  the  following  obser- 
vations respecting  to  manner  in  which  they  have  consistently  endeavoured  to  give  practical  effect  to  those  assurances. 

2.  It  will  be  recalled  that,  at  the  moment  when  His  Majesty's  Government  announced  their  measures  against 
enemy  commerce,  they  declared  their  intention  to  refrain  altogether  from  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  confiscate  ships 
or  cargoes,  which  belligerents  had  always  previously  claimed  in  respect  of  lirearhes  of  blockade;  that  under  Article 
Five  [1]  of  the  enactment  of  the  1  Ith  March,  it  was  expressly  pro\-ided  that  any  person  claiming  to  be  interested  in 
goods  placed  in  the  Prize  Court  in  ])ursuance  of  the  provision  of  that  enactment,  might  forthwith  issue  a  writ  against 
the  proper  officer  of  the  CYown,  the  object  being  to  confer  upon  claimants  the  right  to  institute  proceedings  without 
waiting  for  the  writ  of  the  procurator  general,  and  thus  to  remove  all  pos-sible  causi  of  legitimate  grievance  on  account 
of  delay;  and  that,  finally,  a  pacific  assurance  was  given  to  the  United  States  Government  that  the  instructions  to  be 
issued  by  His  Majesty's  Government  to  the  fleet,  and  to  the  customs  officials  and  executive  officials  concerned,  would 
impress  upon  them  the  duty  of  acting  with  the  utmost  dispatch  consistent  with  the  object  in  view,  and  of  showing  in 
every  case  such  consideration  for  neutrals  as  might  be  compatible  with  that  object,  namely,  to  prevent  vessels  carrying 
goods  for,  or  coming  from,  the  enemy's  territory. 

3.  The  above  measures  were  all  designed  to  alleviate  the  biu-dens  imposed  upon  neutral  sea-borne  commerce  in 
general.  Various  special  concessions,  over  and  above  those  enumerated,  have  moreover  been  made  in  favour  of  United 
States  citizens. 

4.  Thus  His  Majesty's  Government  have  acted,  as  regards  shipments  of  American  cotton,  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  an  agreement  arrived  at  in  direct  collaboration  with  representatives  of  the  American  cotton  interests. 
In  accepting  this  scheme,  the  principal  representative  of  those  interests  described  it  as  conceding  all  that  American 
interests  could  properly  ask.  The  provisions  of  the  arrangement  were,  as  the  United  States  Ambassador  is  aware, 
as  follows: 

"(1)  All  cotton  for  whirh  contracts  of  sale  and  freight  engagements  have  already  been  made  before  the  2d  March 
is  to  be  allowed  free  [or  bought  at  contract  jirice  if  stopped],  provided  the  ship  sails  not  later  than  the  3Ist  March. 

"  (2)  Similar  treatment  is  to  be  accorded  to  all  cotton  insured  before  the  2d  March,  provided  it  is  put  on  board  not 
later  than  the  16th  March. 

"(3)  All  shipments  of  cotton  claiming  the  above  protection  are  to  be  declared  before  sailing,  and  documents 
produced  to,  and  certilicates  obtained  from,  consular  officers  or  other  authority  fixed  by  the  Government." 

5.  Considerable  shipments  tf  cotton  have  already  been  dealt  with  under  this  arrangement,  and  in  certain  cases 
the  dates  specified  have  been  extended  in  favour  of  American  shippers.  The  Board  of  Trade  have  already  paid  a  sum 
exceeding  £450,000  to  various  American  claimants,  and  all  claims  are  being  and  will  continue  to  be  paid  as  rapidly 
as  they  are  presented  and  the  proofs  of  title  can  be  checked.  If  in  some  cases  progress  has  been  delayed,  this  has  been 
due  to  the  fact  which  has  seriously  embarrassed  His  Majesty's  Government — that  a  number  of  consignments,  for 
which  the  American  shippers  had  specifically  invoked  the  protection  of  the  arrangement,  are  now  claimed  by  Swed- 
isli  and  Dutch  firms,  whoso  title  of  ownership,  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  American  shipper,  appears,  in  some 
cases  to  be  valid,  and  in  others  has  led  to  the  issue  of  writs  in  the  Prize  Court. 

6.  It  has  been  explicitly  acknowledged  by  the  si)ecial  representatives  of  the  American  claimants,  who  have  been 
in  constant  and  direct  communication  with  the  lioard  of  Trade,  that  all  the  <iaims  so  far  submitted  under  the  cotton 
arrangement  have  been  settled  with  the  utmost  promptitude  so  soon  as  the  production  of  the  necessary  documents 
by  the  claimants  allowed  of  this  being  done.  There  is,  at  the  present  moment,  no  claim  before  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
errunent  that  has  not  been  paid,  and  the  sums  so  paid  over  are  already  considerably  in  excess  of  the  amounts  realized 
by  the  sale  of  the  goods. 

7.  As  regards  the  more  general  alleg-ation  of  delay  in  dealing  with  cases  of  detained  cargoes,  the  following  facta 
and  figures  may  be  quoted: 

"The  total  number  of  vessels  which,  having  cleared  from  United  Slates  ports  since  the  initiation  of  the  retalia- 
tory measures  against  German  trade,  are  still  detained  in  United  Kingdom  ports,  is  27;  of  this  number,  8  are  discharg- 
ing cotton  which  His  Majesty's  Go\ernment  has  agreed  to  purchase  under  the  above  arrangement.  Of  the  remain- 
ing 19  vessels,  7  are  free  to  depart  so  soon  as  the  items  of  their  cargo  placed  in  the  Prize  Court  have  been  discharged. 
The  other  12,  of  which  3  only  are  American  ships,  are  detained  pending  inquiries  as  to  suspicious  consigmnents, 
and  particulars  as  to  the  dates  and  approximate  causes  of  detention  are  furnished  in  the  accompanying  list:  It  will 
be  observed  that  8  have  been  detained  for  a  period  of  less  than  a  week,  and  3  for  a  period  of  less  than  a  fortnight,  while 
the  detention  of  1  is  due  to  the  difficulties  in  regard  to  transit  across  Sweden  and  Russia." 

8.  His  Majesty's  tJovernment  remain  convinced  that,  on  an  imiiarlial  review  of  the  facts,  it  will  be  admitted  that 
no  arbitrary  interference  with  American  interests  has,  in  regard  to  cotton  cargoes,  occurred;  while  if  due  regard  be 


174  RKSTRATN'TJi  ON  COMMERCE. 

paid  ti)  the  enormous  volume  of  Ameriran  and  neutral  Bhijiping  wliicli  is  continually  engaged  in  the  trans-Atlantic 
trade,  the  figures  and  dates  quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraph  will  pmi)haflize  the  restricted  nature  of  any  interfer- 
ence which  has  taken  ))hue  and  the  close  at  tent  ion  with  which  I  he  olficials  cimcerned  have  adhered  to  their  instructiona 
to  act  in  all  cases  with  expedition  and  with  every  possible  cunsideration  for  neutrals. 

9.  Since  His  Majesty's  Government  have  been  compelled  to  adojit  their  i>resont  meaHures  against  (ierman  com- 
merce, they  have  given  sitecial  consideration  to  the  question  of  avoiding  as  far  as  jxissible  unnecessarj'  damage  to  the 
interests  of  neutrals  in  regard  to  the  export  of  goods  of  German  origin,  and  here  again  liberal  concessions  ha^e  been  made 
to  United  States  citizens.  Under  the  rules  enacted  on  the  11th  March  provision  is  made  for  the  investigation  of  aU 
neutral  claims  respecting  such  goods  in  the  Prize  Coiu-t,  and  it  is  obvious  that  these  claims  can  receive  due  and 
equitable  consideration  most  properly  before  a  judicial  tribunal.  Nevertheless,  in  deference  to  the  express  desire  of 
the  United  States  Government,  arrangements  were  made  toward  the  end  of  March  whereby  United  States  citizens 
who  might  desire  to  import  goods  of  German  origin  via  a  neutral  port  were  enabled  to  produce  proof  of  pajTnent  to 
His  Majesty's  Emba.ssy  at  Washington.  If  such  proof  w-ere  deemed  satisfactorj'.  His  Majesty's  Government  gave  an 
undertaking  that  the  goods  concerned  should  not  be  interfered  with  in  transit,  and  the  American  importer  was  freed 
from  the  necessity  of  submitting  his  claim  to  the  Prize  Court  in  London  for  adjudication.  A  few  days  later  His 
Majesty's  Government  fiu'ther  agreed  to  recognize  the  neutral  ownership  of  goods  of  enemy  origin  even  if  not  paid 
for  before  the  1st  March,  provided  they  were  the  subject  of  an  f .  o.  b.  contract  of  earlier  date,  and  had  arrived  at  a  neutral 
port  before  the  15th  March. 

10.  Special  treatment  has  also  been  accorded  to  cargoes  of  particular  products  destined  for  the  United  States  and 
stated  to  be  indispensable  for  the  industries  of  the  countrj';  and,  in  notes  addressed  to  the  United  States  Ambassador 
in  April  and  May,  undertakings  were  given  not  to  interfere  during  transit  with  certain  cargoes  of  dyestuffs,  potash, 
and  German  beet  seed. 

11.  When  it  became  apparent  that  large  quantities  of  enemy  goods  were  still  passing  out  through  neutral  countries, 
Hia  Majesty's  Government  felt  it  necessary  to  fix  a  definite  date  after  which  such  shipments  must  cease  to  enjoy  the 
special  immunity,  theretofore  granted,  from  liability  to  being  placed  in  the  Prize  Court.  It  had  been  observed  that 
a  large  increase  had  taken  place  in  the  number  of  vessels  sailing  from  neutral  countries  to  America  and  one  of  the 
principal  lines  of  steamships  advertised  a  daily  in  place  of  a  weekly  service.  In  such  circumstances  it  appeared  scarcely 
possible  that  goods  of  enemy  origin,  bought  and  paid  for  prior  to  the  1st  March  should  not  have  already  been  shipped 
to  their  destination.  First  June  was  accordingly  fixed  as  the  date  after  which  the  privilege  allowed  in  the  case  of 
such  shipments  should  cease;  but  once  more  a  special  favour  was  granted  by  extending  the  date  in  exceptional  cases 
to  the  15th  June. 

12.  Importers  in  the  United  States  having  now  had  three  months  in  which  to  clear  off  their  purchases  in  enemy 
territory.  His  ilajesty'a  Goverimient  trust  that,  in  presence  of  the  circumstances  enumerated,  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment will  acknowledge  the  great  consideration  which  has  been  shown  to  American  interests. 

13.  Nevertheless  a  fresh  appeal  has  now  been  made  to  His  Majesty's  Government  that  shipments  of  American 
owned  goods  of  enemy  origin,  if  paid  for  before  the  beginning  of  March,  should  be  allowed  to  be  shipped  without 
molestation  after  the  15th  Jime.  The  appeal  is  based  principally  upon  the  contentions  [A]  that  insufficient  time  has 
already  elapsed;  [B]  that  no  mention  of  a  time  limit  is  made  in  the  enactment  of  the  11th  March;  [C]  that  the  proofs  of 
ownership  required  by  His  Majesty's  Government  are  of  an  exacting  nature  and  involve  much  time  for  preparation. 

14.  The  first  contention  [A]  has  already  been  dealt  with.  As  regards  [B]  and  [C],  it  is  true  that  the  enactment 
of  the  11th  March  contains  no  mention  of  a  time  limit.  But  it  ssems  to  be  overlooked  that  the  time  limit  had  been 
fixed  only  for  the  special  immunity  granted  as  an  exception  from  that  enactment.  It  was  as  a  friendly  concession  to 
American  interests  that  His  Majesty's  Government  agreed  to  an  investigation  of  claims  outside  the  Prize  Court.  As 
for  the  exacting  nature  of  the  proofs  required  by  His  Majesty's  Government,  experience  has  shown  that  such  proofs 
were  necessary. 

15.  In  deference,  however,  to  the  renewed  representations  of  the  United  States  Ambassador,  His  Majesty's  Ciovem- 
ment  have  given  further  directions  that  in  all  such  cases,  as  may  have  been  specially  submitted  through  the  British 
Embassy  at  Washington  or  to  His  Majesty's  Government  direct  on  or  before  the  15th  June  and  passed,  the  goods  shall  be 
allowed  to  proceed  without  interference,  if  shipped  from  a  neutral  port  on  the  conditions  already  laid  down,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  tliat  shipment  may  not  have  been  made  before  the  loth  June. 

16.  His  Majesty's  Government  will  also  be  prepared  hereafter  to  give  special  consideration  to  cases  presented  to 
them  and  involving  particular  hardships,  if  the  goods  concerned  are  reqidred  for  neutral  Governments  or  municipalities, 
or  in  respect  of  works  of  public  utility,  and  where  payment  can  be  shown  to  have  been  made  before  the  1st  March,  l'J15. 

17.  With  the  above  exceptions.  His  Majesty's  Gov  ernment  regret  they  can  not  continue  to  deal  thi-ough  the  diplo- 
matic channel  with  individual  cases,  but  they  would  again  point  out  that  special  provision  is  made  for  the  consideration 
of  such  cases  in  the  Prize  Court. 

18.  Complaints  hav'e  not  infrequently  been  made  that  undue  delay  occurs  in  dealing  with  American  cargoes 
in  the  Prize  Court.  An  interesting  comment  on  this  subject  was  made  by  the  jjresident  of  the  Prize  Court  in  the  case  of 
the  cargo  ex  steamship  Ogeechee  on  the  1-1  th  instant.  His  lordship,  according  to  the  transcript  from  the  official  shorthand 
writer's  notes,  made  the  following  observations: 

"It  is  a  very  extraordinary  thing  that,  when  the  Crown  are  ready  to  go  on,  the  claimants  come  here  and  say,  'We 
can  not  proceed  for  six  weeks."  Some  day,  towards  the  end  of  last  term,  I  had  a  row  cf  eminent  counsel  in  front  pressing 
me  to  fix  a  case  at  once.  I  fixed  it  very  nearly  at  once — that  is  to  say,  the  second  day  of  the  following  term.  They 
all  came  and  said:  'We  want  an  adjournment  for  six  weeks.'  " 

19.  The  solicitor  general  hereupon  remarked: 

"If  I  might  say  so  on  that  one  of  the  reasons  I  applied  to-day  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  that  the  matter  should  be 
dealt  with  as  soon  as  possible  is  for  that  very  reason.  There  has  been  such  a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of  America  and 
American  citizens  that  there  should  be  no  delay,  but  one  finds,  in  fact,  the  delay  comes  frcm  there." 

20.  The  president  then  stated: 

"I  know  that.     I  do  not  know  what  the  explanation  is,  but  I  am  anxious  that  there  should  be  no  delay." 

21.  It  is  true  that  a  number  of  cases,  principally  relating  to  cargoes  which,  though  ostensibl)-  consigned  to  a  person 
in  a  neutral  country,  are  in  reality  believed  to  be  destined  for  the  enemy,  have  been  pending  in  the  Prize  Court  for 
some  time.  The  United  States  Government  are  aware  that  most  ct  these  cargoes  consist  of  meat  and  lard,  and  that 
much  of  the  delay  in  bringing  these  cargoes  to  adjudication  was  due  to  the  fact  that  negotiations  were  being  carried  on 
for  many  weeks  with  a  representative  of  the  principal  American  meat  packers,  for  an  amicable  settlement  out  of  court. 
When  at  length,  owing  to  the  failure  of  the  negotiations.  His  Majesty's  Government  decided  that  they  would  continue 


RESTRAINTS  ON   COMMERCE.  175 

I  ho  Prize  Court  proceedings,  and  had  at  the  request  of  the  claimants  fixed  the  earliest  possible  date  for  the  hearing, 
counsel  for  the  latter  asked  for  an  adjournment  in  their  interests  despite  the  fact  that  the  Crown  was,  by  his  own  admis- 
sion, ready  to  proceed. 

22.  His  Majesty's  Government  are  earnestly  desirous  of  rcm<ning  all  causes  of  avoidable  <lclay  in  dealing  with 
American  cargoes  and  vessels  which  may  be  detained,  and  any  specific  inf|Uiries  or  representations  which  may  be  made 
by  the  United  States  Government  in  regard  to  jiarticular  cases  will  always  receive  the  most  careful  cnninderation  and  all 
information  which  can  be  afforded  without  prejudice  to  Prize  Court  proceedings  will  be  readily  communicated;  but 
they  can  scarcely  admit  that  on  the  liasis  of  actual  facts,  any  substantial  grievance  on  the  part  of  American  citizens 
is  justified  or  can  l>e  sustainerl,  and  they  therefore  confidently  appeal  to  the  opinion  of  the  United  States  Government 
as  enlightened  by  this  memorandum. 

Page. 


File  No.  767.72/1940. 

Tlie  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Translation.] 

Foreign  Office, 
Berlin,  July  S,  1915. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  make  the  following  reply  to  the  note  of  His  Excellency, 
Mr.  James  W.  Gerard,  Ambassador  of  tlie  United  States  of  America,  dated  the  10th  ultimo. 
Foreign  Office  No.  3814,  on  the  subject  of  the  impairment  of  American  interests  by  the  German 
submarine  war: 

The  Imperial  Government  has  learned  with  satisfaction  from  the  note  how  earnestly  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  concerned  in  seeing  the  principles  of  humanity  realized 
in  the  present  war.  Also,  this  appeal  meets  with  full  sympathy  in  German}',  and  the  Imperial 
Government  is  quite  willing  to  permit  its  statements  and  decisions  in  the  case  under  consider- 
ation to  be  governed  by  the  principles  of  humanity  just  as  it  has  done  always. 

The  Imperial  Government  welcomed  it  with  gratitude  when  the  American  Government 
in  its  note  of  May  15,  1915,  itself  recalled  that  Germany  had  always  permitted  itself  to  be 
governed  by  the  principles  of  progress  and  humanity  in  dealing  with  the  law  of  maritime  war. 
Since  the  time  when  Frederick  the  Great  negotiated  with  John  Adams,  Benjamin  Franklin, 
and  Thomas  Jefferson  the  treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce  of  September  10,  1785,  between 
Prussia  and  the  Republic  of  the  West,  German  and  American  statesmen  have  in  fact  always 
stood  together  in  the  struggle  for  the  freedom  of  the  seas  and  for  the  protection  of  peaceable 
trade.  In  the  international  proceedings  which  have  since  been  conducted  for  the  regulation 
of  the  right  of  maritime  war  Germany  and  America  have  jointly  advocated  progressive  prin- 
ciples, especially  the  abolishment  of  the  right  of  capture  at  sea  and  the  protection  of  the  inter- 
ests of  neutrals.  Even  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  war  the  German  Government  immedi- 
ately declared  its  wiUmgness,  in  response  to  the  proposal  of  the  American  Government,  to 
ratify  the  Declaration  of  London  and  thereby  to  subject  itself,  in  the  use  of  its  nava'  forces, 
to  all  the  restrictions  provided  therein  in  favor  of  neutrals.  Germany  has  likewise  been  always 
tenacious  of  the  principle  that  war  should  be  conducted  against  the  armed  and  organized  forces 
of  the  enemy  country,  but  that  the  civihan  population  of  the  enemy  must  be  spared  as  far  as 
possible  from  the  measures  of  war.  The  Imperial  Government  cherishes  the  definite  hope  that 
some  way  will  be  found  when  peace  is  concluded,  or  perhaps  earher,  to  regulate  the  law  of 
maritime  war  in  a  manner  guaranteeing  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  wiU  welcome  it  with  grati- 
tude and  satisfaction  if  it  can  work  hand  in  hand  with  the  American  Goverimient  on  that 
occasion. 

If  in  the  present  war  the  principles  which  should  be  the  ideal  of  the  future  have  been  trav- 
ersed more  and  more  the  longer  its  duration,  the  German  Goverimient  has  no  guilt  therein. 

It  is  known  to  the  American  Government  how  Germany's  adversaries,  by  completely 
paralyzing  peaceable  traffic  between  Germany  and  the  neutral  countries,  have  aimed  from 
the  very  beginning,  and  with  increasing  lack  of  consideration,  at  the  destruction  not  so  much 
of  the  armed  forces  as  the  life  of  the  German  nation,  repudiating  in  so  doing  aU  the  rules  of 
international  law  and  disregarding  all  the  rights  of  neutrals.  On  November  3,  1914,  England 
declared  the  North  Sea  to  be  a  war  area,  and  by  planting  poorly  anchored  mines  and  the 
stoppage  and  capture  of  vessels  made  passage  extremely  dangerous  and  difficult  for  neutral 
shipping,  so  that  it  is  actually  blockading  neutral  coasts  and  ports,  contrary  to  all  interna- 
tional law.  Long  before  the  beginning  of  the  submarine  war  England  practically  completely 
intercepted  legitimate  neutral  navigation  to  Germany  also.  Tims  Germany  was  driven  to 
submarine  war  on  trade.  On  November  16,  1914,  the  English  Prime  Minister  declared  in  the 
House  of  Commons  that  it  was  one  of  England's  principal  tasks  to  prevent  food  for  the  German 
population  from  reaching  Germany  by  way  of  neutral  ports.  Since  March  1  of  this  year 
England  has  been  taking  from  neutral  ships,  without  further  formality,  all  merchandise  pro- 
ceeding to  Germany,  as  well  as  all  merchandise  coming  from  Germany,  even  when  neutral 


176  RESTRAINTS  ON  COMMERCE. 

property.  Just  as  was  the  case  with  the  Boors,  the  Gorman  people  Is  now  to  given  the  choice 
of  perLshinj^  from  starvation,  with  its  women  and  children,  or  of  relinquishing  its  independence. 

While  our  enemies  thus  loudl}^  and  opoidy  have  proclaimed  war  without  mercy  until  our 
utter  d(^stnlction,  we  are  conducting  war  in  self-defense  for  our  national  existence  and  for 
the  sake  of  i)oace  of  assured  permanency.  We  have  heen  obhged  to  adopt  suhmarine  warfare 
to  meet  the  declared  intentions  of  our  enemies  and  the  method  of  warfare  adopted  by  them  m 
contravention  of  international  law. 

With  all  its  efforts  in  principle  to  protect  neutral  life  and  pn)porty  from  damage  as  much 
as  possible,  the  German  GoA^ernnaent  recognized  unreservedly  in  its  memorandum  of  Febru- 
ary 4  that  the  interests  of  neutrals  might  siilTcr  from  submarine  warfare.  However,  the  Amer- 
ican Government  will  also  luiderstand  and  aj)preciate  that  in  the  fight  for  existence  which 
has  been  forced  upon  Germany  by  its  adversaries  and  announced  by  them,  it  is  the  sacred 
duty  of  the  Imperial  Government  to  do  all  within  its  power  to  protect  and  to  save  the  hves 
of  German  subjects.  If  the  Imperial  Government  were  derelict  in  these,  its  duties,  it  woxild 
be  guilty  before  God  and  history  of  the  violation  of  those  principles  of  the  highest  humanity 
which  are  the  foundation  of  every  national  existence. 

The  case  of  tlie  Lusitania  shows  with  horrible  clearness  to  what  jeopardizing  of  human 
lives  the  manner  of  conducting  w"ar  employed  by  our  adversaries  leads.  In  most  direct  con- 
tradiction of  international  law,  all  distinctions  between  merchantmen  and  war  vessels  have 
been  obliterated  by  the  order  to  British  merchantmen  to  arm  themselves  and  to  ram  subma- 
rines and  the  promise  of  rewards  therefor;  and  neutrals  who  use  merchantmen  as  travelers 
have  thereby  been  exposed  in  an  increasing  degree  to  all  the  dangers  of  war.  If  the  com- 
mander of  the  German  submarine  which  destroyed  the  Lusitania  had  caused  the  crew  and 
travelers  to  put  out  in  boats  before  firing  the  torpedo  this  would  have  meant  the  sure  destruc- 
tion of  his  own  vessel.  After  the  experiences  in  the  sinking  of  much  smaller  and  less  sea- 
worthy vessels,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  a  mighty  ship  like  the  Lusitania  would  remain  above 
water  long  enough,  even  after  the  torpedoing,  to  permit  the  passengers  to  enter  the  ship's  boats. 
Circumstances  of  a  very  pecuhar  kind,  especially  the  presence  on  board  of  large  quantities  of 
highly  explosive  materials,  defeated  this  expectation.  In  addition,  it  may  be  pointed  out 
that  if  the  Lusitania  had  been  spared  thousands  of  cases  of  ammunition  would  have  been  sent 
to  Germany's  enemies  and  thereby  thousands  of  German  mothers  and  children  robbed  of  their 
supporters. 

In  the  spirit  of  friendship  with  which  the  German  nation  has  been  imbued  toward  the  Union 
and  its  inhabitants  since  the  earhest  days  of  its  existence,  the  Imperial  Government  will  always 
be  ready  to  do  all  it  can,  during  the  present  war  also,  to  prevent  the  jeopardizing  of  the  hves 
of  American  citizens. 

The  Imperial  Government  therefore  repeats  the  assurances  that  American  ships  will  not 
be  hmdered  in  the  prosecution  of  legitimate  shipping,  and  the  hves  of  American  citizens  on 
neutral  vessels  shall  not  be  placed  in  jeopardy. 

In  order  to  exclude  anj-  unforeseen  dangers  to  American  passenger  steamers,  made  possible 
m  view  of  the  conduct  of  maritime  war  on  the  part  of  Germany's  adversaries,  the  German 
submarines  will  be  instructed  to  permit  the  free  and  safe  passage  of  such  passenger  steamers 
when  made  recognizable  by  special  markings  and  notified  a  reasonable  time  in  advance.  The 
Imperial  Government,  however,  confidently  hopes  that  the  American  Government  will  assume 
the  guarantee  that  these  vessels  have  no  contrabaiid  on  board.  The  details  of  the  arrangements 
for  the  unhampered  passage  of  these  vessels  would  have  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  naval  authorities 
of  both  sides. 

In  order  to  furnish  adequate  facilities  for  travel  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean  for  American 
citizens,  the  German  Government  submits  for  consideration  a  proposal  to  increase  the  number 
of  available  steamers  by  installmg  in  the  passenger  service  a  reasonable  number  of  neutral 
steamers,  the  exact  number  to  be  agreed  upon,  under  the  American  flag  \mder  the  same  conditions 
as  the  American  steamers  above  mentioned. 

The  Imperial  Government  believes  that  it  can  assume  that  in  this  manner  adequate 
facilities  for  travel  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean  can  be  afforded  American  citizens.  There  would 
therefore  appear  to  be  no  compeUing  necessity  for  American  citizens  to  travel  to  Europe  in  time 
of  war  on  ships  carrymg  an  enemy  flag.  In  particular  the  Imperial  Government  is  miable  to 
admit  that  American  citizens  can  protect  an  enemy  ship  through  the  mere  fact  of  their  presence 
on  board.  Germany  merely  foUowed  England's  example  when  it  declared  part  of  the  high 
seas  an  area  of  war.  Consequently  accidents  suffered  by  neutrals  on  enemy  ships  in  this  area 
of  war  can  not  well  be  judged  differently  from  accidents  to  which  neutrals  are  at  aU  times 
exposed  at  the  seat  of  war  on  land  when  they  betake  themselves  into  dangerous  locahties  in 
spite  of  previous  warning. 


RESTRAINTS  ON   COMMERCE.  177 

If,  however,  it  should  not  be  possible  for  the  American  Government  to  acquire  an  adequate 
number  of  neutral  passenfjer  steamers,  the  Im])erial  Government  is  prepared  to  interpose  no 
objections  to  the  phiciug  xnuh'r  tlie  American  ilng  hy  the  American  Government  of  four  enemy 
passenger  steamers  for  the  passenger  traflBc  between  America  and  Enghmd.  The  assurances  of 
"free  and  safe"  passage  for  American  passenger  steamers  woidd  then  be  extended  to  apply 
under  the  identical  pre-conditions  to  tliese  formerly  hostile  passenger  ships. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  declared  his  readiness,  in  a  way  deserving  of  thanks, 
to  communicate  anil  suggest  ]-)roposals  to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  with  particular 
reference  to  tlie  alteration  of  maritime  war.  The  Imperial  Government  will  always  be  glad 
to  make  use  of  the  good  offices  of  the  President,  and  hopes  that  his  efforts  in  the  present  case, 
as  well  as  in  the  direction  of  the  loft\'  ideal  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  will  lead  to  an  understanding. 

The  undersigned  requests  the  Ambassador  to  bring  the  above  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
American  Government,  and  avails  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  renew  to  His  Excellency  the 
assurance  of  his  most  distinguished  consideration. 

VON  Jagow. 


File  No.  7G3.72112/1343a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  TF.  H.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

Department  of  State, 
Waslilngton,  July  I4,  1915. 
In  view  of  differences  which  are  understood  to  exist  between  the  two  Governments  as  to 
the  principles  of  law  applicable  in  prize  court  proceedings  in  cases  involving  American  interests, 
and  in  order  to  avoid  any  misunderstanding  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  in  regard 
to  such  proceedings,  you  are  instructed  to  inform  the  British  Government  that  in  so  far  as  the 
interests  of  American  citizens  are  concerned  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  insist 
upon  their  rights  imder  the  principles  and  rules  of  international  law  as  hitherto  established, 
governing  neutral  trade  in  time  of  war,  without  limitation  or  impairment  by  Orders  in  Council 
or  other  municipal  legislation  by  the  British  Government,  and  will  not  recognize  the  validity 
of  prize  court  proceedings  taken  under  restraints  imposed  hx  British  inimicipal  law  in  derogation 
of  the  rights  of  American  citizens  under  international  law. 


File  No.  300.115/4301a. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Avibassador  TT.  77.  Page. 

[Telegram — Paraphrase .  ] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  15,  1915. 

Ambassador  Page  is  informed  that  it  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Department 
that  the  steamship  Neches,  of  American  register,  sailing  from  Rotterdam  for  the  United  States, 
carrying  a  general  cargo,  after  being  detained  at  the  Downs,  was  brought  to  London,  where  it 
was  required  by  the  British  authorities  to  discharge  cargo,  the  property  of  x\inerican  citizens. 

It  appears  that  the  ground  advanced  to  sustain  this  action  is  that  the  goods  originated,  in 
part  at  least,  in  Belgium,  and  fall,  therefore,  within  the  provisions  of  paragraph  4  of  the  Order 
in  Council  of  March  11,  which  stipulates  that  every  merchant  vessel  saihng  from  a  port  other 
than  a  German  port,  carrying  goods  of  enemy  origin,  may  be  required  to  discharge  such  goods 
in  a  British  or  allied  port. 

Ambassador  Pago  is  instructed  in  this  case  to  reiterate  the  position  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  as  set  forth  in  the  Department's  instruction  of  March  30,  1915,  with  respect 
to  the  Order  in  Coimcil  naentioned,  the  mtcrnational  invalidity  of  wluch  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  regards  as  plainly  illustrated  by  the  present  instance  of  the  seizvu-e  of  American- 
owned  goods  passing  from  the  neutral  port  of  Rotterdam  to  a  neutral  port  of  the  United  States 
merely  because  the  goods  came  originally  fn)m  territory  in  the  possession  of  an  enemy  of  Great 
Britain. 

Mr.  Page  is  also  instructed  to  inform  the  Foreign  Office  that  the  legahty  of  this  seizure  can 
not  be  admitted  and  that  in  the  view  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  it  violates  the 
right  of  the  citizens  of  one  iu>utral  to  trade  with  those  of  another,  as  weU  as  with  those  of  bellig- 
erents except  in  contraband,  or  in  violation  of  a  legal  blockade  of  an  cneiiiy  seaport ;  and  that 
the  rights  of  i\jnerican  o^Nmers  of  goods  to  bring  them  out  of  Holland,  in  due  course,  in  neutral 
ships  must  bo  insisted  upon  by  the  United  States,  even  though  such  goods  may  have  come 
originidly  from  the  territories  of  enemies  of  Great  Britain.  He  is  directed  further  to  insist 
4556°— 15 ^12 


178  BESTKAINTS   ON   OOMMEECE. 

upon  tho  desire  of  this  Government  that  goods  taken  from  the  Neches,  which  are  the  property 
of  iVinorican  citizens,  should  be  expeditiously  released  to  bo  forwarded  to  their  destination, 
and  to  request  that  ho  be  advised  of  the  British  Government's  intended  course  in  this  matter 
at  the  earliest  moment  convenient  to  that  Government. 


File  No.  763.72/1940. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  21,  1915. 
You  are  instructed  to  deliver  textually  the  following  note  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs: 

The  note  of  tho  Imperial  German  Government,  dated  the  8th  of  July,  1915,  has  received  the  careful  consideration 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  it  regrets  to  V>e  obliged  to  say  that  it  has  found  it  very  unsatisfactory', 
because  it  fails  to  meet  the  real  diflerences  between  the  two  Governments  and  indicates  no  way  in  which  the  accepted 
principles  of  law  and  humanity  may  be  applied  in  the  grave  matter  in  controversy,  but  proposes,  on  the  contrary, 
aiTangements  for  a  partial  suspension  of  those  principles  which  \-irtually  set  them  aside. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  notes  with  satisfaction  that  the  Imperial  German  Government  recognizes 
without  reservation  the  validity  of  the  principles  insisted  on  in  the  several  communications  which  this  Government 
has  addressed  to  the  Imperial  German  Government  with  regard  to  its  announcement  of  a  war  zcne  and  the  use  of  sub- 
marines against  merchantmen  on  the  high  seas — the  principle  that  the  high  seas  are  free,  that  the  character  and  cargo 
of  a  merchantman  must  first  be  ascertained  before  she  can  lawfully  be  seized  or  destroyed,  and  that  the  lives  of  non- 
combatants  may  in  no  case  be  put  in  jeopardy  unless  the  vessel  resists  or  seeks  to  escape  after  being  siimmoned  tc  submit 
to  examination ;  for  a  belligerent  act  of  retaliation  is  per  se  an  act  beyond  the  law,  and  the  defense  of  an  act  as  retaliatory 
is  an  admission  that  it  is  illegal. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is,  however,  keenly  disappointed  to  find  that  the  Imperial  German  Govern- 
ment regards  itself  as  in  large  degree  exempt  from  the  obligation  to  observe  these  principles,  even  where  neutral  vessels 
are  concerned,  by  what  it  believes  the  policy  and  practice  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  to  be  in  the  present  war 
with  regard  to  neutral  commerce.  The  Imperial  German  Government  will  readily  understand  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  can  not  discuss  the  policy  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  with  regard  to  neutral  trade  except 
with  that  Government  itself,  and  that  it  must  regard  the  conduct  of  other  belligerent  governments  as  irrelevant  to  any 
discussion  with  the  Imperial  German  Government  of  what  this  Government  regards  as  grave  and  unjustifiable  ■siola- 
tiona  (f  the  rights  of  American  citizens  by  German  naval  commanders.  Illegal  and  inhuman  acts,  hiiwe\'er  justifiable 
they  may  be  thought  to  be  against  an  enemy  who  is  believed  to  have  acted  in  contravention  of  law  and  humanity, 
are  manifestly  indefensible  when  they  deprive  neutrals  of  their  acknowledged  rights,  particularly  when  they  violate 
the  right  to  life  itself.  If  a  belligerent  can  not  retaliate  against  an  enemy  without  injiurng  the  lives  of  neutrals,  as 
well  as  their  property,  humanity,  as  well  as  justice  and  a  due  regard  for  the  dignity  of  neutral  powers,  should  dictate 
that  the  practice  be  discontinued.  If  persisted  in  it  would  in  such  circumstances  constitute  an  unpardonable  offense 
against  the  sovereignty  of  the  neutral  nation  affected.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  not  unmindful  of  the 
extraordinarj'  conditions  created  by  this  war  or  of  the  radical  alterations  of  circumstance  and  method  of  attack  produced 
by  the  use  of  instrumentalities  of  naval  warfare  which  the  nations  of  the  world  can  not  have  had  in  view  when  the 
existing  rules  of  international  law  were  formulated,  and  it  is  ready  to  make  every  reasonable  allowance  for  these  novel 
and  unexpected  aspects  of  war  at  sea;  but  it  can  not  consent  to  abate  any  essential  or  fundamental  right  of  its  people 
because  of  a  mere  alteration  of  circumstance.  The  rights  of  neutrals  in  time  of  war  are  based  upon  principle,  not  upon 
expediency,  and  the  principles  are  immutable.  It  is  the  duty  and  obligation  of  belligerents  to  find  a  way  to  adapt  the 
new  circumstances  to  them. 

The  events  of  the  past  two  months  have  clearly  indicated  that  it  is  possible  and  practicable  to  conduct  such  sub- 
marine operations  as  have  characterized  the  activity  of  the  Imperial  German  Xa'V)'  within  the  so-called  war  zone  in 
substantial  accord  with  the  accepted  practices  of  regulated  warfare.  The  whole  world  has  looked  with  interest  and 
increasing  satisfaction  at  the  demonstration  of  that  possibility  by  German  naA-al  commanders.  It  is  manifestly  possible, 
therefore,  to  lift  the  whole  practice  of  submarine  attack  above  the  criticism  which  it  has  aroused  and  remove  the  chief 
causes  of  offense. 

In  view  of  the  admission  of  illegality  made  by  the  Imperial  Government  when  it  pleaded  the  right  of  retaliation 
in  defense  of  its  acts,  and  in  view  of  the  manifest  possibility  of  conforming  to  the  established  rules  of  naval  warfare, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  can  not  believe  that  the  Imperial  Government  will  longer  refrain  from  disavowing 
the  wanton  act  of  its  naval  commander  in  sinking  the  Lusitania  or  from  offering  reparation  for  the  American  lives  lost, 
ao  far  as  reparation  can  be  made  for  a  needless  destruction  of  human  life  by  an  illegal  act. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  while  not  indifferent  to  the  friendly  spirit  Ln  which  it  is  made,  can  not 
accept  the  suggestion  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  that  certain  vessels  be  designated  and  agreed  upon  which 
shall  be  free  on  the  seas  now  illegally  proscribed.  The  very  agreement  would,  by  implication,  subject  other  vessels 
to  illegal  attack  and  would  be  a  curtailment  and  therefore  an  abandonment  of  the  principles  for  which  this  Government 
contends  and  which  in  times  of  calmer  counsels  even,-  nation  would  concede  as  of  cotuse. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  Imperial  German  Govenmient  are  contending  for  the  same  great 
oljject,  have  long  stood  together  in  urging  the  very  principles,  upon  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  now 
so  solemnly  insists.  They  are  both  contending  for  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  The  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  continue  to  contend  for  that  freedom,  from  whatever  quarter  violated,  without  compromise  and  at  any  cost.  It 
invites  tho  practical  cooperation  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  at  this  time  when  cooperation  may  accomplish 
most  and  this  great  common  object  be  most  strikingly  and  effecti\ely  achie\ed. 

The  Imperial  German  Government  expresses  the  hope  that  this  object  may  be  in  some  measure  accomplished 
even  before  the  jiresent  war  ends.  It  can  be.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  not  only  feels  obliged  to  insist 
u;)on  it.  I)y  whomsoever  violated  or  ignored,  in  the  protection  of  its  own  citizens,  but  is  also  deeply  interested  in  seeing 


RESTRAINTS   ON   COMMERCE.  129 

it  niado  practicable  between  the  belligerents  themselves,  and  holds  itself  ready  at  any  time  to  act  ac  the  commor 
friend  who  may  be  privileged  to  suggest  a  way. 

In  the  meantime  the  very  value  which  this  Government  sets  upon  the  long  and  unbroken  friendship  between 
the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States  and  Ihe  people  and  Government  of  the  German  nation  impeL<?  it  to 
press  very  solemnly  upon  the  Imperial  German  Government  the  necessity  for  a  scrupulous  ol)sor\ance  of  oeutra.i  rightf 
in  this  critical  matter.  Friendship  itself  promi)t8  it  to  say  to  the  Imperial  Government  that  repetition  by  tne  com- 
manders of  German  naval  vessels  of  acts  in  contravention  of  those  rights  must  bo  regarded  by  the  Government  ot  the 
United  States,  when  they  affect  American  citizens,  as  deliberately  unfriendly. 

Lansing. 


Pile  No.  763.72112/1381. 

Ambassador  11'.  //.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  July  2^,  1915. 
Following  note,  dated  July  23,  received  from  Sir  Edward  Grey  this  jnorning: 

On  the  2d  April  Your  Excellency  handed  to  me  a  copy  of  a  communication  containing  the  criticisms  of  the  United 
States  Government  on  the  measures  we  have  been  constrained  to  take  on  account  of  the  menace  to  peaceful  commerce 
resulting  from  the  German  submarine  policy.  This  communication  has  received  the  most  careful  consideration  of 
Uis  Majesty's  Government. 

2.  I  fully  appreciate  the  friendly  spirit  and  the  candour  which  are  shown  in  the  communication  and,  replying 
in  the  same  spirit,  I  trust  that  I  may  be  able  to  convince  Your  Excellency  and  also  the  administration  at  Washington 
that  the  measures  we  have  announced  are  not  only  reasonable  and  necessarj'  in  themselves,  but  constitute  no  more 
than  an  adaptation  of  the  old  principles  of  blockade  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  with  which  we  are  confronted. 

3.  I  need  scarcely  dwell  on  the  obligation  incumbent  upon  the  allies  to  take  every  step  in  their  power  to  overcome 
their  common  enemy  in  view  of  the  shocking  violation  of  the  recognized  rules  and  principles  of  ci\ilized  warfare  of 
wliich  he  has  been  guilty  diu-ing  the  present  struggle.  Your  Excellency's  attention  has  already  been  drawn  to  some 
of  these  proceedings  in  the  memorandum  which  I  handed  to  you  on  the  19th  February.  Since  that  time  Lord  Bryce's 
report,  based  on  evidence  carefully  sifted  by  legal  experts,  describing  the  atrocities  committed  in  Belgium,  the  poison- 
ing of  wells  in  German  Southwest  Africa,  the  use  of  poisonous  ga-ses  against  the  troops  in  Flanders,  and  finally  the  sink- 
ing of  the  lAisitania  without  any  opportunity  to  passengers  and  noncombatants  to  save  their  lives,  have  shown  how 
indispensable  it  is  that  we  should  leave  unused  no  justifiable  method  of  defending  ourselves. 

■1,  Yoiu-  Excellency  will  remember  that  in  my  notes  of  the  13th  and  15th  March  I  explained  that  the  allied  Gov- 
ernments intended  to  meet  the  German  attempt  to  stop  all  supplies  of  every  kind  from  leaving  or  entering  British  or 
French  ports  by  themselves  intercepting  goods  going  to  or  from  Germany.  I  read  the  communication  from  Your 
Excellency's  Government  not  as  questioning  the  necessity  for  our  taking  all  the  steps  open  to  us  to  cripple  the  enemy's 
trade,  but  as  directed  solely  to  the  question  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  particular  measures  adopted. 

5.  In  tlve  various  notes  wliich  I  liave  received  from  Your  Excellency  the  right  of  a  belligerent  to  establish  a  blockade 
of  tlie  enemy  port.3  is  admitted  a  right  wliich  has  obviously  no  value  save  in  so  far  as  it  gives  power  to  a  belligerent  to 
cut  off  sea-borne  exports  and  imports  of  Ms  enemy,  llie  contention  wliich  I  imderstand  tlie  United  States  Govern- 
ment now  put  forward  i-i  that  if  a  belligerent  w  so  circumstanced  that  liis  commerce  can  pa.«s  through  adjacent  neutral 
ports  as  easily  as  tlirough  ports  in  his  own  territory,  liis  opponent  lias  no  right  to  interfere  and  must  restrict  his  measures 
of  blockade  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  such  avenues  of  commerce  still  open  to  liis  adversarj'.  This  is  a  contention 
which  nis  Majesty's  Government  feel  unable  to  accept  and  which  seems  to  them  imsustainable  either  in  point  of  law 
or  upon  principles  of  international  equity.  Tliey  are  unable  to  admit  that  a  belligerent  violates  any  fundamental 
principle  of  international  law  by  applying  a  blockade  in  such  a  way  as  to  cut  off  the  enemy's  commerce  with 
foreign  countries  tlirough  neutral  ports  if  the  circumstances  render  such  an  application  of  tlic  principles  of  blockade 
the  only  means  of  making  it  effective.  Tlie  Government  of  the  United  States  indeed  intimates  its  readiness  to  take 
into  account  "tlie  great  changes  which  liave  occurred  in  tlie  conditions  and  means  of  naval  warfare  since  the  rules 
liitherto  governing  legal  blockade  were  formulated,"  and  recognizes  that  "tlie  form  of  close  blockade  \vitli  its  cordon 
of  sliips  in  the  immediate  offing  of  the  blockaded  port-i  is  no  longer  practicable  in  the  face  of  an  enemy  possessing  the 
means  and  opportunity  to  make  an  effective  defense  by  the  use  of  submarines,  mines,  and  aircraft. 

6.  Tlie  only  question  then  which  can  arise  in  regard  to  tlie  measiu-es  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  a 
blockade  upon  tliese  extended  lines  is  whether,  to  use  Yoiu-  Excellency's  words,  they  "conform  to  tlie  spirit  and  prin- 
ciples of  Uie  essence  of  the  niles  of  war";  and  wc  sliall  be  content  to  apply  this  test  to  the  action  which  we  have  taken 
in  so  far  as  it  lias  necessitated  interference  with  neutral  commerce. 

7.  It  may  be  noted  in  tlus  connection  tliat  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  the  United  States  foimd  tliemselvcs  imder 
the  necessity  of  declaring  a  blockade  of  some  3,000  miles  of  coast  line,  a  military  operation  for  which  the  number  of 
vessels  available  was  at  first  very  .-mall.  It  was  \-ital  to  the  cause  of  tlie  United  States  in  Uiat  great  struggle  that  they 
sliould  be  able  to  cut  off  tlie  trade  of  the  Southern  States.  Tlie  Confederate  Armies  were  dependent  on  suppUes  from 
over  fseas,  and  those  supplies  coidd  not  be  obtained  -witJiout  exporting  the  cotton  wherewitli  to  pay  for  tliem.  To  cut 
off  lliis  trade  the  United  States  could  only  rely  upon  a  blockade.  The  difficulties  confronting  tlie  Federal  Government 
were  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that  neighbouring  neutral  territory  afforded  convenient  centres  from  wliich  contraband 
could  bo  ultroduced  into  tlie  territory  of  their  enemies  and  from  wliich  blockade  running  could  be  facilitated.  Your 
Excellency  will  no  doubt  remember  how,  in  order  to  meet  tliis  new  difficulty,  the  old  principles  relating  to  contraband 
and  blockade  were  developed  and  tlie  doctrine  of  continuous  voyage  was  applied  and  enforced  under  which  goods 
destined  for  tlie  enemy  territory  were  intercepted  before  they  reached  the  neutral  ports  from  which  Uiey  were  to  be 
reexported. 

K.  Tlic  difficulties  wliich  imposed  upon  the  United  States  the  necessity  ot  reshaping  some  of  the  old  rules  are 
somewliat  akin  to  those  with  wliich  the  allies  are  now  faced  in  dealing  with  tlie  trade  of  their  enemy.  Adjacent  to 
Germany  are  varion.-.  neutral  countries  wliich  afft)rd  her  convenient  oiiportunities  for  carrjdng  on  her  trade  with  foreign 
coimtries.  Her  own  territories  are  covered  by  a  network  of  railways  and  waterways,  which  enable  her  commerce  to 
pass  as  conveniently  tlirough  ports  in  such  neutral  coimtries  as  tlirough  her  own.     A  blockade  limited  to  enemy  ports 


180  BESTRAINTS  ON   COMMERCE. 

would  leave  open  routes  by  which,  every  kind  of  German  commerce  could  pass  almost  as  easily  as  through  the  ports 
in  her  own  territory.     Rotterdam  is  indeed  tlie  nearest  outlet  for  some  of  the  industrial  dLstricts  of  Germany. 

9.  As  a  counterpoise  to  tlie  freedom  with  which  one  belligerent  may  send  lua  commerce  acro.-is  a  neutral  country 
without  compromLsing  its  neutrality,  tlie  other  belligerent  may  fairly  claim  to  intercept  such  commerce  before  it  has 
cached,  or  after  it  has  left,  the  neutral  State,  provided,  of  course,  tliat  he  can  establish  tliat  the  commerce  with  which 
he  interferes  is  the  commerce  of  liis  enemy  and  not  commerce  wluch  is  bona  fide  de.-^tined  for  or  proceeding  from  the 
neutral  State.  It  seems,  accordingly,  tliat  if  it  be  recognized  tliat  a  blockade  is  in  certain  cases  the  appropriate  method 
of  intercepting  the  trade  of  an  enemy  country,  and  if  the  blockade  can  only  become  effective  by  extending  it  to  enemy 
commerce  passing  tliroiigh  neutral  ports,  such  an  extension  is  defensible  and  in  accordance  with  principles  which  liave 
met  with  general  acceptance. 

10.  To  die  contention  that  such  action  is  not  directly  supported  by  written  authority,  it  may  be  replied  that  it  Is 
the  business  of  writers  on  international  law  to  formulate  existing  rules  rather  tlian  to  offer  suggestions  for  tlieir  adapta- 
tion to  altered  circumstances,  and  Your  Excellency  will  remember  the  immeasured  terms  in  which  a  group  of  prominent 
international  lawj-ers  of  all  nations  condemned  the  doctrine  wliich  liad  been  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  Stato.<  in  the  case  of  the  Springbok,  a  doctrine  upheld  by  the  Claims  Commission  at  Washington  in  1873.  But 
tlie  United  States  and  the  British  Governments  took  a  broader  view  and  looked  below  tJie  surface  at  the  underlying 
principles,  and  the  Government  of  this  country,  whose  nationals  were  tlie  sufferers  by  the  e.xtension  and  development 
of  the  old  methods  of  blockade  made  by  the  United  States  during  the  Civil  War,  abstained  from  all  protest  against 
the  decisions  by  which  the  sliips  and  their  cargoes  were  condemned. 

11.  What  is  really  important  in  the  general  interest  is  that  adaptations  of  the  old  rules  should  not  be  made  uniesa 
they  are  consistent  with  the  general  principles  upon  which  an  admitted  belligerent  right  is  based.  It  is  al.«o  essential 
tliat  all  unnecessaiy  injury  to  neutrals  should  be  avoided.  With  these  conditions  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the 
steps  we  are  taking  to  intercept  commodities  on  their  way  to  and  from  Germany  fully  comply.  We  are  interfering  with 
no  goods  mth  which  we  should  not  be  entitled  to  interfere  by  blockade  if  the  geograpliical  position  and  the  conditions 
of  Germany  at  present  were  such  tliat  her  commerce  passed  through  her  own  ports.  We  are  taking  the  utmost  possible 
care  not  to  interfere  with  commerce  genuinely  destined  for  or  proceeding  from  neutral  countries.  I'^'urthermore,  we 
have  tempered  the  severity  with  which  our  measures  might  press  upon  neutrals  by  not  apphdng  the  rule  wliich  was 
invariable  in  the  old  form  of  blockade  that  ships  and  goods  on  their  way  to  or  from  the  blockaded  area  are  liable  to 
condemnation. 

12.  Tlie  commimication  made  by  the  United  States  Embassy  on  the  2d  April  describes  as  a  novel  and  quite  unprece- 
dented feature  of  the  blockade  that  it  embraces  many  neutral  ports  and  coasts  and  has  the  effect  of  barring  access  to 
them.  It  does  not  appear  that  our  measures  can  be  properly  so  described.  If  we  are  successful  in  the  efforts  we  are 
making  to  distinguish  between  the  commerce  of  neutral  and  enemy  countries  there  will  be  no  substantial  interference 
with  tlie  trade  of  neutral  ports  except  in  so  far  as  they  constitute  ports  of  access  to  and  exit  from  tlie  enemy  territory. 
Tliere  are  at  tliis  moment  many  neutral  ports  wliich  it  would  be  mere  affectation  to  regard  as  offering  facilities  only 
for  tiie  commerce  of  the  neutral  country  in  wliich  they  are  situated,  and  the  only  commerce  with  which  we  propose  to 
interfere  Ls  tliat  of  the  enemy  who  seeks  to  make  use  of  such  ports  for  the  purposes  of  transit  to  or  from  his  own  countrj'. 

13.  One  of  the  earlier  passages  in  Your  Excellency's  memorandum  was  to  the  effect  that  the  sovereignty  of  neutral 
nations  in  time  of  war  suffers  no  diminution  except  in  so  far  as  the  practice  and  consent  of  ci\-ilized  nations  has  limited 
it  "by  the  recognition  of  certain  now  clearly  determined  rights,"  which  it  is  considered  may  be  exercised  by  nations  at 
war;  and  these  it  defines  as  the  right  of  capture  and  condemnation  for  unneutral  service  for  the  carriage  of  contraband 
and  for  breach  of  blockade.  I  may,  however,  be  permitted  to  point  out  that  the  practice  of  nations  on  each  of  the 
three  subjects  mentioned  has  not  at  any  time  been  uniform  or  clearly  determined,  nor  has  the  practice  of  any  maritime 
nation  always  been  consistent. 

14.  There  are  various  particulars  in  which  the  exact  method  of  carrying  a  blockade  into  effect  has  from  time  to 
time  varied.  The  need  of  a  public  notification,  the  requisite  standard  of  effectiveness,  the  locality  of  the  blockading 
squadrons,  the  right  of  the  individual  ship  to  a  preliminary  warning  that  the  blockade  is  in  force,  and  the  penalty  to  be 
inflicted  on  a  captured  blockade  runner  are  all  subjects  on  which  different  views  have  prevailed  in  different  countries 
and  in  which  the  practice  of  particular  countries  has  been  altered  from  time  to  time.  The  one  principle  which  is 
fundamental  and  has  obtained  universal  recognition  is  that  by  means  of  blockade  a  belligerent  is  entitled  to  cut  off  by 
effective  means  the  sea-borne  commerce  of  his  enemy. 

15.  It  is  the  same  with  contraband.  The  underlying  principle  is  well  established,  but  as  to  the  details  there  has 
been  a  wide  variety  of  view.  As  for  unneutral  service — the  very  term  is  of  such  recent  introduction  that  many  writers 
of  repute  on  international  law  do  not  even  mention  it.  It  is  impossible  in  the  view  of  His  Majesty's  Government  in 
these  circumstances  to  maintain  that  the  right  of  a  belligerent  to  intercept  the  commerce  of  his  enemy  is  limited  in  the 
way  suggested  in  Your  Excellency's  communication. 

16.  There  are  certain  subsidiary-  matters  dealt  with  in  Your  Excellency's  communication  to  which  I  tliink  it  well 
to  refer.  Amongst  these  may  be  mentioned  your  citation  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris,  due  no  doubt  to  the  words  which 
occur  in  the  memorandum  sent  by  me  to  Your  Excellency  on  the  1st  March,  wherein  it  was  stated  that  the  allied 
Goveniments  would  hold  themselves  free  to  detain  and  take  into  port  ships  carrying  goods  of  presumed  enemy  desti- 
nation, ownership,  or  origin,  and  to  our  announcement  that  vessels  might  be  required  to  discharge  goods  of  enemy 
ownership  as  well  as  those  of  enemy  origin  or  destination. 

17.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  extent  to  which  the  second  rule  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris  is  affected  by  these 
measures  or  whether  it  could  be  held  to  apply  at  all  as  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  In  actual  practice, 
however,  we  are  not  detaining  goods  on  the  sole  ground  that  they  are  the  property  of  an  enemy.  The  purpose  of  the 
measures  we  are  taking  is  to  intercept  commerce  on  its  way  from  and  to  the  enemy  country.  There  are  many  cases  in 
which  proof  that  the  goods  were  enemy  property  would  afford  strong  evidence  that  they  were  of  enemy  origin  or  enemy 
destination,  and  it  is  only  in  such  cases  that  we  are  detaining  them.  Where  proof  of  enemy  ownership  would  afford 
no  evidence  of  such  origin  or  destination  we  are  not  in  practice  detaining  the  goods. 

18.  His  Majesty's  Government  have  been  gratified  to  observe  that  the  measures  which  they  are  enforcing  have 
had  no  detrimental  effect  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States.  Figures  of  recent  months  show  that  the  increased 
opportunities  afforded  by  the  war  for  American  commerce  have  more  than  compensated  for  the  loss  of  the  Gorman  and 
Aufctriau  markets. 

19.  I  trust  that  in  the  light  of  the  above  explanations  it  will  be  realized  that  the  measures  to  wliich  we  have 
resorted  have  been  not  only  justified  by  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  but  can  be  defended  as  in  accordance  with  general 


EESTBAINTS   ON    COMMERCE.  181 

principles  which  have  commended  themselves  to  the  Govcnimcnte  of  both  countries.     I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  assure 
Your  Excellency  that  we  shall  continue  to  apply  these  measures  with  every  desire  to  occasion  the  least  possible  amount 
of  inconvenience  to  persona  engaged  in  Intimate  commerce. 
I  have,  etc., 

E.  Gkey. 


Page. 


File  No.  300115/4432. 


Ambassador  11'.  //.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
[Telegram.] 


American  Embassy, 
London,  July  31,  1915. 
Your  1852,  15th. 
Sir  Edward  Grey  has  to-day  sent  me  the  following  note: 

The  note  which  Your  Excellency  addressed  to  me  on  the  17th  instant  respecting  the  detention  of  the  cargo  of  the 
steamship  Neches  han,  I  need  hardly  say,  received  the  careful  attention  of  His  Majesty's  Government. 

The  note  which  I  had  the  honour  to  send  to  Your  Excellency  on  the  23d  instant  has  already  explained  the  view  of 
Ilis  Majesty's  Goveriunent  on  the  legal  aspect  of  the  question,  though  it  was  prepared  before  Your  Excellency's  com- 
munication of  the  17th  had  been  received,  and  i)ending  consideration  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  the 
views  and  arguments  set  forth  in  the  British  note  of  the  23d  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  more  on  the  question  of 
right  or  of  law. 

There  is,  however,  one  general  ob.servation  that  seems  relevant  to  the  note  from  Your  Excellency  respecting  the 
cargo  of  the  Neches. 

It  is  the  practice  of  the  Gennan  Government  in  the  waters  through  which  the  Neches  was  passing  to  sink  neutral 
as  well  as  British  merchant  ve.^.sels  irrespective  of  the  destination  of  the  vessel  or  origin  of  the  cargo,  and  without  proper 
regard  or  provision  for  the  safety  of  passengers  or  crews,  many  of  whom  have  lost  their  lives  in  consequence.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  this  action  is  contrary  to  the  recognized  and  settled  rules  of  international  law  as  well  as  to 
the  principles  of  humanity. 

His  Majesty's  Government,  on  the  other  hand,  have  adhered  to  the  rules  of  visit  and  search,  and  have  observed 
the  obligation  to  bring  into  port  and  submit  to  a  prize  court  any  ships  or  cargoes  with  regard  to  which  they  think  they 
have  a  good  case  for  detention  or  for  condemnation  as  contraband. 

His  Majesty's  Government  are  not  aware,  except  from  the  published  correspondence  between  the  United  States 
and  Germany,  to  what  extent  reparation  has  been  claimed  from  Germany  by  neutrals  for  loss  of  ships,  lives,  and  cargoes, 
nor  how  far  these  acts  have  been  the  subject  even  of  protest  by  the  neutral  Governments  concerned. 

While  these  acts  of  the  German  Government  continue  i'  seems  neither  reasonable  nor  just  that  His  Majesty's 
Government  should  be  pressed  to  abandon  the  rights  claimed  in  the  British  note  of  tht.  23d,  and  to  allow  goods  from 
Germany  to  pass  freely  through  waters  effectively  patrolled  by  British  ships  of  war. 

If,  however,  it  be  alleged  that  in  particular  cases  and  special  circumstances  hardship  may  be  inflicted  on  citizens 
of  neutral  countries,  Uis  Majesty's  Government  are  ready  in  such  cases  to  examine  the  facts  in  a  spirit  of  consideration 
for  the  interest  of  neutrals,  and  in  this  spirit  they  are  prepared  to  deal  with  the  cargo  of  the  Neches,  to  which  Your 
Excellency  has  called  attention,  if  it  is  held  that  the  particular  circumstances  of  this  case  fall  within  this  category. 

Page. 


File  No.  763.72112/1423. 

Ambassador  W.  H.  Page  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  July  31,  1915. 

Your  1848,  July  14,  5  p.  m.     I  have  to-day  received  the  following  note  from  Sir  Edward 

Grey: 

Foreign  Office,  July  SI,  1915. 

Your  Excellency: 

1.  I  have  the  honour  lo  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  note  dated  the  16th  instant  in  which  you  were  good  enough 
to  communicate  to  me  for  the  information  of  Uis  Majesty's  Government,  the  opinion  held  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  that  in  view  of  differences  which  they  understand  to  exist  between  the  two  countries  as  to  the  principles 
of  law  applicable  in  casea  before  the  prize  court,  they  could  not  recognize  the  validity  of  proceedings  taken  in  His 
Majesty's  prize  court  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

2.  I  do  not  understand  to  what  divergence  of  views  as  to  the  principles  of  law  applicable  in  cases  before  the  prize 
court  the  Government  of  the  United  States  refer,  for  I  am  not  aware  of  any  differences  existing  between  the  two  coun- 
tries as  to  the  principles  of  law  applicable  in  cases  before  such  courts. 

3.  British  prize  courts,  "According  to  the  ancient  form  of  commission  under  which  they  sit,  are  to  determine 
cases  which  come  before  them  according  to  the  course  of  admiralty  and  the  law  of  nations  and  the  statutes,  rules,  and 
regulations  for  the  time  being  in  force  in  that  behalf." 

As  to  the  principles  applied  by  the  American  prize  courts,  I  note  that  in  the  case  of  the  Amy  Warwick  (2  Sprague, 
123').  it  was  hold  that  prize  courts  are  suliject  to  the  instructions  of  their  own  sovereign.  In  the  absence  of  such  instruc- 
tions their  jurisdiction  and  rules  of  decision  are  to  be  ascertained  by  reference  to  the  known  powers  of  such  tribunals 
and  the  principles  by  which  they  arc  governed  under  the  public  law  and  the  practice  of  nations.  It  would  appear, 
therefore,  that  the  principles  applied  by  the  prize  courts  of  the  two  countries  are  identical. 

4.  As  illustrating  further  the  attitude  adopted  by  the  judges  of  British  prize  courts  toward  these  two  sources  of 
law,  the  municipal  legislation  of  its  Sovereign  on  the  one  hand  and  the  principles  of  International  Law  on  the  other, 
I  should  like  to  refer  Your  Excellency  to  a  classical  passage  in  the  judgment  of  Lord  Stowell,  in  the  case  of  the  Fox, 
in  which  that  famous  judge  observed  in  the  course  of  the  discussion:  "A  question  has  been  stated,  what  would  be  the 
duty  of  the  court  under  Orders  in  Council,  that  were  repugnant  to  the  Law  of  N.itions?  It  has  been  contended  on  one 
side  that  the  court  would  at  all  events  be  found  to  enforce  the  Orders  in  Council,  oa  the  other  that  the  court  would  be 


182  RESTRAINTS   ON   COMMERCE. 

bound  to  api)!/  tho  rule  of  the  law  of  nations  adapted  to  the  particular  case,  in  disregard  of  the  Orders  in  Council. 
This  court  is  hound  to  administer  the  law  of  nations  to  the  subjects  of  other  countries  in  the  different  relations  in  which 
they  may  he  placed  toward  tliis  country  and  its  Government.  That  is  what  others  have  a  right  to  demand  for  their 
aulijecta  and  to  complain  if  thoy  receive  it  not.  This  is  its  unwritten  law  evidencod  in  tho  course  of  its  decisions  and 
collected  from  the  common  usage  of  civilized  states.  At  the  same  time  it  is  strictly  true  that  by  the  Constitution  of 
this  country  the  King  in  Council  poBse.sKe8  legislative  rights  over  this  court  and  has  jHJwer  to  issue  orders  and  instruc- 
tions which  it  is  bound  to  obey  and  enforce;  and  these  constitute  the  written  law  of  this  court.  These  two  propositions, 
that  the  court  is  bound  to  administer  the  law  of  nations,  and  that  it  is  bound  to  enforce  the  King's  Orders  in  Council, 
are  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  each  other,  because  these  orders  and  instructions  are  jjresumed  to  conform  themselves, 
under  the  given  circumstances,  to  the  principles  of  its  unwritten  law.  They  are  either  directory  applications  of  those 
principles  to  the  cases  indicated  in  them — caaes  which,  with  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  belonging  to  them,  and 
v.'hich  constitute  their  legal  character  could  be  but  imperfectly  known  to  the  court  itself;  or  they  are  positive  regula- 
tions, con.'ri.stent  with  these  principles,  applying  to  matters  which  require  more  exact  and  deliuite  rules  than  those 
general  principles  are  capable  of  furnishing.  The  constitution  of  this  court,  relatively  to  the  legislative  power  of  the 
King  in  Council,  is  analogous  to  that  of  the  courts  of  common  law  relatively  to  that  of  the  Parliament  of  this  Kingdom. 
These  courts  have  their  unwritten  law,  the  approved  reasons,  principles  of  natural  reason  and  justice — they  have  like- 
wise the  written  or  statute  law  in  acts  of  Parliament,  which  are  directory  applications  of  the  same  principles  to  particu- 
lar subjects,  or  positive  regulations  consistent  with  them,  upon  matters  which  would  remain  too  much  at  large  if  they 
were  left  to  the  imperfect  information  which  the  courts  could  extract  from  mere  general  speculations.  What  would 
be  the  duty  of  the  individuals  who  preside  in  these  courts,  if  required  to  enforce  an  act  of  Parliament  which  contra^ 
dieted  those  principles,  is  a  question  which  I  presume  they  would  not  entertain  a  priori;  because  they  mil  not  entertain 
a  priori,  the  suppo.sition  that  any  such  will  arise.  In  like  manner  this  court  will  not  let  itself  loose  into  speculations 
as  to  what  would  be  its  duty  under  such  an  emergency;  because  it  can  not,  without  extreme  indecency,  presume 
that  any  such  emergency  will  happen.  And  it  is  the  less  disposed  to  entertain  them  because  its  own  observation  and 
experience  attest  the  general  conformity  of  such  orders  and  in.structions  to  its  principles  of  unwritten  law." 

5.  The  above  passage  has  recently  been  quoted  and  adopted  by  the  president  of  the  prize  court  in  the  case  of 
the  Zamora,  in  which  Sir  S.  Evans  said:  "I  make  bold  to  express  the  hope  and  belief  that  the  nations  of  the  world 
need  not  be  apprehensive  that  Orders  in  Council  will  emanate  from  the  Government  of  this  country  in  such  \'iolation 
of  the  acknowledged  laws  of  nations  that  it  is  conceivable  that  our  prize  tribunals,  holding  the  law  of  nations  in  rev- 
erence, would  feel  called  upon  to  disregard  and  refuse  obedience  to  the  provisions  of  such  orders." 

6.  In  the  note  which  I  handed  to  Your  Excellency  on  the  23d  July,  I  endeavored  to  convince  the  Government 
of  the  f^nited  States,  and  I  trust  with  success,  that  the  measiu^es  that  we  have  felt  ourselves  cor.ijielled  to  adopt,  in 
consequence  of  the  numerous  acts  committed  by  our  enemies  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  war  and  the  dictates  of  humanity 
are  consistent  with  the  principles  of  international  law.  The  legality  of  these  measures  has  not  yet  formed  the  subject 
of  a  decision  of  the  prize  court;  but  I  wish  to  take  this  opportunity  of  reminding  Your  Excellency  that  it  is  open  to 
any  United  (States  citizen  whose  claim  is  before  the  prize  court  to  contend  that  any  Order  in  Council  which  may  affect 
his  claim  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  international  law  and  is,  therefore,  not  binding  upon  the  court.  If 
the  prize  court  declines  to  accept  his  contentions,  and  if,  after  such  a  decision  has  been  upheld  on  appeal  by  the 
Judicial  Committee  of  His  Majesty's  Privy  Council,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  consider s  that 
there  is  serious  ground  for  holding  that  the  decision  is  incorrect  and  infringes  the  rights  of  their  citizens,  it  is  open 
to  them  to  claim  that  it  should  be  subjected  to  review  by  an  international  tribunal. 

7.  This  principle  that  the  decisions  of  the  national  prize  courts  may  properly  be  subjected  to  international 
review  was  conceded  by  Great  Britain  in  Article  7  of  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1793  and  by  the  United  States  of  America 
under  the  Treaty  of  Washington  of  1871.  Your  Excellency  will  no  doubt  remember  that  certain  cases  (collectively 
known  as  the  "Matamoros  cases")  were  submitted  to  the  commission  established  under  Articles  12-17  of  the  Treaty 
of  Washington.  In  each  of  these  cases  proceedings  in  prize  had  been  instituted  in  the  prize  courts  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  each  case  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  court  of  last  resort,  in  cases  of  prize  had  been  obtained, 
the  United  States  filed  a  demurrer  in  these  cases,  alleging  that  as  they  had  been  heard  by  the  prize  courts  of  the 
United  States  of  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction,  the  decision  of  the  appellate  court  was  final  and  no  claim  based 
upon  it  could  be  made  before  the  commission.  The  demurrer  was  unanimously  oven'uled  and  the  cases  heard,  and 
the  agent  of  the  United  States,  in  his  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  commission,  stated  that  he  personally  "main- 
tained no  doubt  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commission  as  an  international  tribunal  to  review  tho  decisions  of  the  prize 
courts  of  the  United  States,  where  the  parties  alleging  themselves  aggrieved  had  prosecuted  their  claims  by  appeals 
to  the  court  of  last  resort,  as  this  jurisdiction,  however,  had  been  sometimes  questioned,  he  deemed  it  desirable  that 
a  formal  adjudication  by  the  commission  should  be  had  upon  this  question." 

8.  The  same  principle  was  accepted  both  by  the  United  States  Government  and  His  Majesty's  Government  in 
1907  in  connection  with  the  proposed  establishment  of  an  international  prize  court,  although  certain  constitutional 
difficulties  have  led  the  United  States  Go\'ernment  to  propose  that  the  right  of  recourse  to  the  international  prize 
coiu-t  in  connection  with  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  should  take  the  form  of  a  direct  claim 
for  compensation. 

9.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  both  the  United  States  Government  and  His  Majesty's  Government  have  adopted 
the  principle  that  the  decisions  of  a  national  prize  court  may  be  open  to  review  if  it  is  held  in  the  prize  court  and  in 
the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Pri\-y  Council  on  appeal  that  the  orders  and  instructions  issued  by  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment in  matters  relating  to  prize  are  in  harmony  with  tho  principles  of  international  law;  and  should  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  tmfortunately,  feel  compelled  to  maintain  a  contrary  view.  His  Majesty's  Government 
will  be  prepared  to  concert  with  the  United  States  Government  in  order  to  decide  upon  the  best  way  of  applying  the 
above  principle  to  the  situation  wliich  would  then  have  arisen.  I  trust,  however,  that  the  defense  of  our  action, 
wliich  I  have  already  communicated  to  Your  Excellency,  and  the  willingness  of  His  Majesty's  Government  (which 
has  been  shown  in  so  many  instances)  to  make  reasonable  concessions  to  American  interests,  will  jirevent  the  necessity 
for  such  actic  n  arising. 

10.  In  any  case,  I  trust  that  the  explanations  given  above  will  remove  the  misapprehension  under  which  I  can 
not  but  feel  the  Government  of  the  United  States  are  labouring  as  to  the  principles  applied  by  British  prize  courts  in 
deaJing  with  the  cases  which  come  before  them. 

I  have,  etc., 

E.  Gkev. 

Page. 


PART  XXI. 


DESTRUCTION  OF  AMERICAN  MERCHANTMAN  WILLIAM  P.  FRYE  BY  THE 
GERMAN  SHIP  PRINZ  EITEL  FRIEDRICH. 


1S3 


CASE  OF  THE  WILLIAM  P.  FRYE. 

File  No.  462.11Se8/30. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. ^ 

[Telegram.] 
No.  2391.]  American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  June  7,  1915. 
The  following  is  the  text  of  the  reply  of  the  German  Government  in  the  Frye  case: 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  make  the  following  reply  to  the  note  of  His  Excellency  Mr.  James  W.  Gerard, 
Ambassador  of  the  United  States  of  America,  dated  April  30,  1915  (F.  O.  No.  3291),  on  the  suhject  of  the  sinking  of 
the  American  sailing  vessel  William  P.  Frye  by  the  German  auxiliary  cruiser  Prinz  Eilel  Friedrich: 

The  German  Government  can  not  admit  that,  as  the  American  Government  assumes,  the  destruction  of  the  sailing 
vessel  mentioned  constitutes  a  violation  of  the  treaties  concluded  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States  at  an  earlier 
date  and  now  applicable  to  the  relations  between  the  German  Empire  and  the  United  States  or  of  the  American  rights 
derived  therefrom.  For  these  treaties  did  not  have  the  intention  of  depriving  one  of  the  contracting  parties  engaged 
in  war  of  the  right  of  stopping  the  supply  of  contraband  to  his  enemy  when  he  recognizes  the  supply  of  such  articles 
as  detrimental  to  liis  military  interests.  On  the  contrary,  Article  13  of  the  Prussian-American  Treaty  of  July  11,  1799, 
expressly  reserves  to  the  party  at  war  the  right  to  stop  the  carrying  of  contraband  and  to  detain  the  contraband;  it 
follows  then  that  if  it  can  not  be  accomplished  in  any  other  way,  the  stopping  of  the  supply  may  in  the  extreme  case 
be  effected  by  the  destruction  of  the  contraband  and  of  the  ship  carrying  it.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  obligation 
of  the  party  at  war  to  pay  compensation  to  the  interested  persons  of  the  neutral  contracting  party  remains  in  force 
whatever  be  the  manner  of  stopping  the  supply. 

According  to  general  principles  of  international  law,  any  exercise  of  the  right  of  control  over  the  trade  in  contraband 
is  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  Prize  Courts,  even  though  such  right  may  be  restricted  by  special  treaties.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  present  war  Germany,  pursuant  to  these  principles,  established  by  law  prize  jurisdiction  for  cases 
of  the  kind  under  consideration.  The  case  of  the  WiUiavi  P.  Frye  is  likewise  subject  to  the  German  prize  jurisdiction, 
for  the  Prussian-American  Treaties  mentioned  contain  no  stipulation  as  to  how  the  amount  of  the  compensation  pro- 
vided by  Article  13  of  the  treaty  cited  is  to  be  fixed.  The  German  Government,  therefore,  compUcs  with  its  treaty 
obligations  to  a  full  extent  when  the  Prize  Courts  instituted  by  it  in  accordance  with  international  law  proceed  in 
pursuance  of  the  treaty  stipulations  and  thus  award  the  American  interested  persons  equitable  indemnity.  There 
would,  therefore,  be  no  foundation  for  a  claim  of  the  American  Government,  unless  the  Prize  Courts  should  not  grant 
indemnity  in  accordance  with  the  treaty;  in  such  an  event,  however,  the  German  Government  would  not  hesitate 
to  arrange  for  equitable  indemnity  notwithstanding.  For  the  rest,  prize  proceedings  in  the  case  of  the  Frye  are  indis- 
pensable, apart  from  the  American  claims,  for  the  reason  that  other  claims  of  neutral  and  enemy  interested  parties 
are  to  be  considered  in  the  matter. 

As  was  stated  in  the  note  of  April  4  last,  the  Prize  Court  will  have  to  decide  the  questions  whether  the  destruction 
of  the  ship  and  cargo  was  legal;  whether  and  under  what  conditions  the  property  sunk  was  Liable  to  confiscation,  and 
to  whom  and  in  what  amount  indemnity  is  to  be  paid  provided  application  therefor  is  received.  Since  the  decision 
of  the  Prize  Court  must  first  be  awaited  before  any  further  position  is  taken  by  the  German  Government,  the  simplest 
way  for  the  American  interested  parties  to  settle  their  claims  would  be  to  enter  them  in  the  competent  quarter  in 
accordance  with  the  pro\-ision8  of  the  German  Code  of  Prize  Procedure. 

The  undersigned  begs  to  suggest  that  the  ambassador  bring  the  above  to  the  knowledge  of  his  Government,  and 
avails  himself  at  the  same  time  of  the  opportunity  to  renew  the  assurances  of  his  most  distinguished  consideration. 

(Signed.)  v.  Jagow. 

Gerard. 


File  No.  462.11Se8/33. 

T%e  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 
No.  1868.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  24,  1915. 
You  are   instructed   to  present  the  following  note  to  the  German  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs : 

1  have  the  honor  to  inform  Your  Excellency  that  I  duly  communicated  to  my  Government  your  note  of  the  7th 
instont  on  the  subject  of  the  claim  presented  in  my  note  of  April  3d  last,  on  behalf  of  the  owners  and  captain  of  the 
American  sailing  vessel  William  P.  Frye  in  consequence  of  her  destruction  by  the  German  au.xiliary  cruiser  Prim 
Eilel  Friedrich. 

In  reply  I  am  instructed- by  my  Government  to  say  that  it  has  carefully  considered  the  reasons  given  by  the 
Imperial  German  Government  for  urging  that  this  claim  should  bo  passed  upon  by  the  German  Prize  Court  instead 
of  being  settled  by  direct  diplomatic  discussion  between  the  two  Governments,  as  proposed  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  it  regrets  to  find  that  it  can  not  concur  in  the  conclu.sions  reached  by  the  Imperial  German 
Government. 

As  pointed  out  in  my  last  note  to  you  on  this  subject,  dated  April  30,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has 
considered  that  the  only  question  under  discussion  was  the  method  which  should  be  adopted  for  ascertaining  the 

1  For  earlier  correspondence,  see  Series  M,  No,  ?9,  pp.  87  et  seq. 

185 


186  CASE   OF   THE   WILLIAM   P.   FRYE. 

amount  of  the  indemnity  to  bo  paid  under  an  admitted  liability,  and  it  notes  with  surprise  that  in  addition  to  this 
quostion  the  Imperial  German  Government  now  desires  to  raise  some  questions  as  to  the  meaning  and  effect  of 
the  treaty  stipulationa  under  which  it  has  admitted  its  liability. 

If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  correctly  understands  the  position  of  the  Imperial  German  Government 
as  now  presented,  it  is  that  the  provisions  of  Article  13  of  the  Treaty  of  1799  between  the  United  States  and  Pnissia, 
wluch  is  continued  in  force  Iiy  the  Treaty  of  1828,  justified  the  commander  of  the  Prinz  Eitel  Fricdridi  in  sinking  the 
WiHiam  P.  Frije.  although  making  the  Imperial  German  Govornraont  liable  for  the  damages  suffered  in  consequence, 
and  that  inasmuch  as  the  treaty  provides  no  specific  method  for  ascertaining  the  amount  of  indemnity  to  be  paid, 
that  question  must  be  submitted  to  the  German  Prize  Court  for  determination. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  does  not  find  in  the  treaty  stipulations  mentioned  any 
justification  for  the  sinking  of  the  Frye.  and  does  not  consider  that  the  German  Prize  Court  has  any  jurisdiction  over 
the  question  of  the  amount  of  indemnity  to  be  paid  by  the  Imperial  German  Government  on  account  of  its  admitted 
liability  for  the  destruction  of  an  American  vessel  on  the  high  seas. 

You  state  in  your  note  of  the  7th  instant  that  article  1.3  of  the  above-mentioned  treaty  of  1799  "expressly  reserves 
to  the  party  at  war  the  right  to  stop  the  carrying  of  contraband  and  to  detain  the  contraband;  it  follows  then  that  if 
it  can  not  be  accomplished  in  any  other  way,  the  stopping  of  the  supply  may  in  the  extreme  case  be  effected  by  the 
destruction  of  the  contraband  and  of  the  ship  carrj'ing  it." 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  can  not  concur  in  this  conclusion.  On  the  contrary,  it  holds  that  these 
treaty  provisions  do  not  authorize  the  destniction  of  a  neutral  vessel  in  any  circumstances.  By  its  express  terms  the 
treaty  prohibits  even  the  detention  of  a  neutral  vessel  carrying  contraband  if  the  master  of  the  vessel  is  willing  to 
surrender  the  contraband.  Article  13  provides  "in  the  case  supposed  of  a  vessel  stopped  for  articles  of  contrabands 
if  the  master  of  the  vessel  stopped  will  deliver  out  the  goods  supposed  to  be  of  contraband  nature,  he  shall  be  admitted 
to  do  it,  and  the  vessel  shall  not  in  that  case  be  carried  into  any  port,  nor  further  detained,  but  shall  be  allowed  to 
proceed  on  her  voyage." 

In  this  case  the  admitted  fac  ts  show  that  pursuant  to  orders  from  the  commander  of  the  German  cruiser,  the  master 
of  the  Fnje  undertook  to  tlu-ow  overboard  the  cargo  of  that  vessel,  but  that  before  the  work  of  delivering  out  the  cargo 
was  finished  the  vessel  with  the  cargo  was  sunk  by  order  of  the  German  commander. 

For  these  reasons,  even  if  it  be  assumed  as  Your  Excellency  has  done,  that  the  cargo  was  contraband,  your  con- 
tention that  the  destruction  of  the  vessel  was  justified  by  the  pro\isions  of  Article  13  does  not  seem  to  be  well  founded. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  thought  it  necessary  in  the  discussion  of  this  case  to  go  into  the  question 
of  the  contraband  or  noncontraband  character  of  the  cargo.  The  Imperial  German  Government  h;i8  admitted 
that  this  question  makes  no  ililference  so  far  as  its  liability  for  damages  is  concerned,  and  the  result  is  the  same  so  far 
as  the  justification  for  the  sinking  of  the  ves.sel  is  concerned.  As  shown  above,  if  we  assume  that  the  cargo  was  con- 
traband, the  master  of  the  Frijc  should  have  been  allowed  to  deliver  it  out,  and  the  vessel  should  have  been  allowed 
to  proceed  on  lier  voyage. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  assume  that  the  cargo  was  noncontraband,  the  destruction  eitlier  of  the  cargo  or  the 
vessel  could  not  be  justified  in  the  circumstances  of  this  case  under  any  accepted  rule  of  international  law.  Attention 
is  also  called  to  the  provisions  of  Article  12  of  the  Treaty  of  1785  between  the  United  States  and  Prussia,  wluch,  like 
Article  13  of  the  Treaty  of  1799,  was  continued  in  force  by  Article  12  of  the  Treaty  of  1828.  So  faj-  as  the  provisions 
of  Article  12  of  the  treaty  of  1785  apply  to  the  question  under  consideration,  they  are  as  foUows: 

"If  one  of  the  contracting  parties  should  be  engaged  in  war  ^vith  any  other  Power,  the  free  intercourse  and  com- 
merce of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  party  remaining  neuter  with  the  belligerent  Powers  shall  not  be  interrupted. 
On  the  contrary,  in  that  case,  as  in  full  peace  the  vessels  of  the  neutral  party  may  navigate  freely  to  and  from  the 
ports  and  on  the  coasts  of  the  belUgerent  parties,  free  vessels  making  free  goods,  insomuch  that  all  things  shall  be 
adjudged  free  wluch  shall  be  on  board  any  vessel  belonging  to  the  neutral  party,  although  such  things  belong  to  an 
enemy  of  the  other." 

It  seems  clear  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  therefore,  that  whether  the  cargo  of  the  Frye  is  regarded 
as  contraband  or  as  noncontraband,  the  destruction  of  the  vessel  was,  as  stated  in  my  pre\iouB  communication  on  this 
subject,  "a  violation  of  the  obligations  imposed  upon  the  Imperial  German  Government  under  existing  treaty  stipu- 
lations between  the  United  States  and  Prussia." 

For  these  reasons  the  Government  of  the  United  States  must  disagree  with  the  contention  which  it  understands 
is  now  made  by  the  Imperial  German  Government  that  an  American  vessel  carrying  contraband  may  be  de.s1royed 
without  liability  or  accountability  beyond  the  payment  of  such  compensation  fur  damages  as  may  be  fixed  by  a  Gor- 
man Prize  Court.  The  issue  thus  presented  arises  on  a  disputed  interpretation  of  treaty  provisions,  the  settlement 
of  which  requires  direct  diplomatic  discussion  between  the  two  Go\ernments,  and  can  not  properly  be  biised  ujion 
the  decision  of  the  German  Prize  Court,  which  is  in  no  way  conclusive  or  binding  upon  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

Moreover,  even  if  no  disputed  questions  of  treaty  interpretation  was  involved,  the  admission  by  the  Imperial 
German  GovemmeTit  of  its  liability  for  damages  for  sinking  the  vessel  would  seem  to  make  it  unnecessary,  so  far  as 
this  claim  is  concerned,  to  ask  the  Prize  Court  to  decide  "whether  the  destruction  of  the  ship  and  cargo  was  legal, 
and  whether  and  under  what  conditions  the  property  sunk  was  liable  to  confiscation,"  which,  you  state  in  your  note 
dated  June  7,  are  questions  which  should  be  decided  by  the  Prize  Court.  In  so  far  as  those  questions  relate  to  the 
cargo,  they  are  outside  of  the  present  discussion,  because,  as  pointed  out  in  my  previous  note  to  you  on  the  subject 
dated  April  30,  "the  claim  under  discussion  does  not  include  damages  for  the  destruction  of  the  cargo." 

The  real  question  between  the  two  Governments  is  what  reparation  must  be  made  for  a  breach  of  treaty  obliga- 
tions, and  that  is  not  a  question  which  falls  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Prize  Court. 

In  my  first  note  on  the  subject  the  Government  of  the  United  States  requested  that  "full  reparation  be  made 
by  the  Imperial  German  Government  for  the  destruction  of  the  William  P.  Frye."  Reparation  necess;irily  includes 
an  indemnity  for  the  actual  pecuniary  loss  sustamed,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  Suites  takes  this  opportu- 
nity to  assure  the  Imperial  German  Government  that  such  an  indemnity,  if  promptly  paid,  will  be  accepted  iis  s.;t- 
isfactory  reparation,  but  it  docs  not  rest  with  a  Prize  Court  to  determine  what  reparation  should  be  made  or  what 
reparation  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Your  Excellency  states  in  your  note  of  June  7  that  in  the  event  the  Prize  Court  should  not  grant  indemnity  in 
accordance  with  the  treaty  requirements,  the  German  Government  would  not  hesitate  to  arrange  for  equitable  indeni- 
lity,  but  it  is  also  necessary  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  be  satisfied  with  the  amount  of  the 


CASE   OF   THE   WILLIAM    P.    FR\-E.  187 

indemnity,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  more  approj)riate  and  convenient  that  an  arrangement  for  equitable  indemnity 
should  be  agreed  upon  now  rather  than  later.  The  decision  of  the  Prize  Court,  even  on  tho  question  of  the  amount 
of  indemnity  to  be  paid,  would  not  be  bindiupt  or  conclusive  on  tho  Govemment  of  the  United  States, 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  also  dissents  from  the  view  expressed  in  your  note  that  "there  woidd  Ije 
no  foundation  for  a  claim  of  the  American  Government  unless  tho  Prize  Courts  shoukl  not  grant  indemnity  in  accord- 
ance with  the  treaty."  The  claim  presented  by  the  American  Government  is  for  aji  indemnity  for  a  violation  of  a 
treaty,  in  distinction  from  an  indemnity  in  accordance  with  the  treaty,  and  tliereforo  is  a  matter  for  adjustment  by 
direct  diplomatic  discussion  between  the  two  Governmenta  and  ia  iu  no  way  dependent  upon  the  action  of  a  German 
Prize  Court. 

For  the  reasons  above  stated  the  Government  of  the  United  States  can  not  recognize  tho  propriety  of  submitting 
the  claim  presented  by  it  on  behalf  of  the  owners  and  captain  of  the  Fnje  to  the  German  Prize  Court  for  settlement. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  not  concerned  mth  any  proceedings  which  the  Imperial  German  Gov- 
emment may  wish  to  take  on  "other  claims  of  neutral  and  enemy  interested  parties"  which  have  not  been  presented 
by  the  Govemment  of  the  United  States,  but  which  you  state  in  your  note  of  June  7  make  Prize  Court  proceedings 
in  this  case  indispensable,  and  it  does  not  perceive  the  necessity  for  postponing  the  settlement  of  the  present  claim 
pending  the  consideration  of  those  other  claims  by  the  Prize  Court. 

Tho  Government  of  the  United  States,  therefore,  suggests  that  the  Imperial  German  Govemment  reconsider  tho 
subject  in  tho  light  of  these  considerations,  and  because  of  the  objections  against  resorting  to  the  Prize  Court  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  renews  its  former  suggestion  that  an  effort  bo  made  to  settle  this  claim  by  direct 
diplomatic  negotiations. 

Lansing. 


File  No.  462.11Se8/39. 

Ambassador  Gerard  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 
No.  2656.]  American  Embassy, 

Berlin,  July  30,  1915. 
Following  note  received: 

Foreign  Office,  Berlin,  July  SO,  1915. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  inform  His  Excellency,  Mr.  James  W.  Gerard,  Ambassador  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  reply  to  the  note  of  the  26tli  ultimo,  Foreign  Office  No.  3990,  on  the  subject  of  the  sinking  of  the  Amer- 
ean  merchant  vessel  William  P.  Fn/c  by  the  German  auxiliary  cruiser  Prince  Eitel  Friedrich,  that  the  points  of  view 
brought  out  in  the  note  have  been  carefully  examined  by  the  Imperial  German  Govemment.  This  examination  has 
led  to  the  following  conclusions: 

Tho  (Jovernment  of  tho  United  States  believes  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  w  to  take  the  position  that  tho  treaty 
rights  to  which  America  is  entitled,  as  contained  in  Article  12  of  the  Prussian-American  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce 
of  September  10,  1785,  in  Article  13  of  the  Prussian- American  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  July  11,  1799,  were 
violated  by  tho  sinking  of  the  William  P.  Fnje.  It  interprets  these  articles  as  meaning  that  a  merchantman  of  the 
neutral  contracting  party  carrying  contraband  can  not  in  any  cii'cumirtances  be  destroyed  by  a  warship  of  tho  bellig- 
erent contracting  party,  and  that  the  sinking  of  the  William  P.  Pryc  was,  therefore,  in  violation  of  tho  treaty,  even 
if  her  cargo  should  have  consisted  of  contraband,  which  it  leaves  outside  of  the  discussion. 

The  German  Govemment  can  not  accept  this  view.  It  insists  as  heretofore  that  the  commander  of  the  German 
auxiliary  cr\iiser  acted  in  tho  legal  exercise  of  the  right  of  control  of  trade  in  contraband  enjoyed  by  warships  of  bel- 
ligerent nations,  and  that  the  treaty  stipulations  mentioned  merely  oblige  the  German  Government  to  make  com- 
pensiition  for  tho  damage  sustained  by  the  American  citizens  concerned. 

It  is  not  disputed  by  the  American  Government  that,  according  to  general  principles  of  intcmational  law,  a  belligerent 
is  authorized  in  sinking  neutral  vessels  under  almost  any  conditions  for  carrying  contraband.  As  is  well  known,  these 
principles  wore  laid  down  in  Articles  49  and  50  of  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  were  recognized  at  that  time  by 
the  duly  empowered  delegates  of  all  the  nations  which  participated  in  the  conference,  including  tho  American  delegates, 
to  be  declarative  of  existing  international  law  (see  proliminar}'  ( lause  of  the  Declaration  of  London);  moreover,  at  the 
beginning  of  tho  present  M-ar,  the  American  Go\ernmont  proposed  to  the  belligerent  nations  to  ratify  the  Declaration 
of  London  and  gi^'e  its  provisions  formal  validity  also. 

The  Gorman  (io\'ernment  has  already  exi)lained  in  its  noto  of  April  4  last  for  what  reasons  it  coosiders  that  the 
conditions  justifying  the  sinking  under  international  l.aw  were  present  in  the  case  of  tho  William  P.  Frye.  The  cargo 
consisted  of  conditional  contraband,  the  destination  of  which  for  the  hostile  armed  forces  was  to  bo  presumed  under 
the  circumstances;  no  proof  to  overcome  this  presumption  has  been  furnished.  More  than  half  the  cargo  of  the  vessel 
was  contraband,  so  that  tha  vessel  was  liable  to  confiscation.  The  attempt  to  bring  the  American  vessel  into  a  German 
port  would  have  greatly  imperiled  the  German  vessel  in  the  given  situation  of  the  war,  and  at  any  rate  practically 
defeated  th-^  success  of  her  further  operations.  Thus  tho  a\ithority  for  sinking  the  vessel  was  given  according  to  general 
principles  of  interiialioual  law. 

There  only  remains  then  to  be  examined  the  question  how  far  the  Pmssian-American  treaty  stipulations  modify  these 
principles  of  international  law. 

InthisconnectionArticlel2of  the  treaty  of  1785  provides  thatintheeventofawar  between  one  of  the  contracting 
parties  with  another  power  the  free  commerce  and  intercourse  of  the  nationals  of  the  party  remaining  neutral  with  tho 
belligerent  powers  shall  not  be  iutermpted,  but  that  on  the  contrary  tho  vessel  of  the  neutral  party  may  navigate  freoly 
to  and  from  the  ports  of  the  belligerent  powers,  even  neutralizing  enemy  goods  on  board  thereof.  However,  this  article 
merely  formulates  general  rules  for  the  freedom  of  maritime  int  crcourss  and  leaves  the  question  of  contraband  untouched ; 
tho  specific  stipulations  on  this  point  are  contained  in  the  following  article,  which  is  materially  identical  with  Article 
13  of  the  treaty  of  1799  now  in  force. 

The  plain  intention  of  Article  13  is  to  establish  a  reasonable  compromise  between  the  military  interests  of  the 
belligerent  contracting  party  and  ( he  commercial  int€re^ts  of  tho  neutral  party.  On  the  one  hand  the  belligerent  party 
is  to  have  tho  right  to  prevent  the  transportation  of  war  stipplios  to  his  adversaries  e\en  when  carried  on  vessels  of 
the  neutral  party;  on  the  other  hand  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  neutral  party  is  to  be  interfered  with  as 


188  CASE   OF    THE   WILLIAM    P.   FRYE. 

litllc  as  possiblo  by  Iho  measures  necessary  for  such  prevention,  and  reasonable  compensation  is  to  be  paid  for  any  incon- 
venience or  damage  which  may  nevertheless  enstie  from  the  proceeding  of  the  belligerent  party. 

Article  13  recites  the  following  means  whereby  the  belligerent;  party  can  prevent  the  vessels  of  the  neutral  party 
from  carrying  war  supplies  to  his  adversary.  The  detention  of  the  ship  and  cargo  for  such  length  of  time  as  the  bellig- 
erent may  think  necessiiry;  furthermore  the  taking  o^'or  of  the  war  stores  for  his  owii  use,  paying  the  full  value  of  the 
same  aa  ascertained  at  the  place  of  destination.  The  right  of  sinking  is  not  mentioned  in  the  treaty  and  ia  therefore 
neither  expressly  permitted  nor  expressly  prohibited,  so  that  on  this  point  the  party  stipulations  must  be  supplemented 
by  the  general  nilcs  of  international  law.  From  the  moaning  and  spirit  of  the  treaty  it  really  appears  out  of  the  question 
that  it  was  intended  to  expect  of  the  belligerent  that  he  should  permit  a  vessel  loaded  with  contraband,  for  example  a 
shipment  of  arms  and  ammtinition  of  decisive  importance  f)r  the  outcome  of  the  war,  to  proceed  unhindered  to  his 
enemy  when  circumstances  forbid  the  carrying  of  the  vessel  into  port,  if  the  general  rules  of  international  law  allow 
sinking  of  the  vessel. 

The  remaining  stipalations  of  Article  13  must  likewise  be  considered  in  this  light;  they  provide  that  the  captain 
of  a  vessel  stopped  shall  be  allowed  to  proceed  on  his  voyage  if  he  delivers  out  the  contraband  to  the  warship  which 
stopped  hLs  vessel.  For  stich  delivering  out  can  not  of  course  be  considered  when  the  ensuing  loss  of  time  imperils 
either  the  warship  herself  or  the  success  of  her  other  operations.  In  the  case  of  the  William  P.  Fnje  the  German  com- 
mander at  first  tried  to  have  matters  settled  by  the  delivery  of  contraband,  but  convinced  himself  of  the  impracticability 
of  this  attempt  in  that  it  would  expose  his  ship  to  attack  by  whatever  superior  force  of  enemy  war  vessels  pursuing  him 
and  was  accordingly  obliged  to  determine  upon  the  sinking  of  the  Frye.  Thus  he  did  not  exceed  on  this  point  the 
limits  to  which  he  was  bound  by  Article  13. 

However,  Article  13  asserts  itself  here  to  the  extent  that  it  founds  the  obligation  to  compensate  the  American 
citizens  affected,  whereas  according  to  the  general  rales  of  international  law  the  belligerent  party  does  not  need  to 
grant  compensation  for  a  vessel  lawfullj'  sunk.  For  if,  by  Article  13,  the  mere  exercise  of  right  of  highways  makes 
the  belligerent  liable  for  compensation,  this  must  apply  a  fortiori  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  sinking. 

The  question  whether  the  German  commander  acted  legally  was  primarily  a  subject  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Gennan  prize  courts  according  to  general  principles  of  international  law  as  laid  down;  also  in  Article  1  of  The  Hague 
Convention  for  the  establishment  of  an  international  prize  court  and  in  Article  51  of  the  Declaration  of  London.  The 
German  Government  consequently  laid  the  case  of  William  P.  Frye  before  the  competent  prize  court  at  Hamburg, 
as  was  stated  in  its  note  of  the  7th  ultimo.  This  court  found  by  its  judgment  of  the  10th  instant  that  the  cargo  of  the 
American  vessel  William  P.  Fnje  was  contraband,  that  the  vessel  could  not  be  carried  into  port,  and  that  the  sinking 
was  therefore  justified;  at  the  same  time  the  court  expressly  recognized  the  validity  of  the  Prussian-American  treaty 
stipulations  severally  mentioned  for  the  relations  between  the  German  Empire  and  America,  so  that  the  sinking  of 
the  ship  and  cargo,  so  far  as  American  property,  makes  the  German  Empire  liable  for  indemnity.  The  prize  court  was 
unable  to  fix  the  indemnity  itself,  since  it  had  no  data  before  it,  faULng  the  receipt  of  the  necessary  details  from  the 
parties  interested. 

It  will  now  be  necessary  to  settle  these  points  in  a  different  way.  The  German  Government  suggests  as  the  simplest 
Way  that  each  of  the  two  Governments  designate  an  expert,  and  that  the  two  experts  jointly  fix  the  amount  of  indemnity 
for  the  vessel  and  any  American  property  which  may  have  been  surdc  with  her.  The  German  Government  ■«  ill  promptly 
pay  the  amount  of  indemnity  thus  ascertained;  it  expressly  declares,  however,  reverting  to  what  has  been  stated  abo%-e, 
that  this  payment  does  not  constitute  satisfaction  for  the  violation  of  American  treaty  rights,  but  a  dutj'  or  policy  of  this 
Government  founded  on  the  existing  treaty  stipulations. 

Should  the  American  Government  not  agree  to  this  manner  of  settling  the  matter,  the  German  Government  is 
prepared  to  submit  the  difference  of  opinion  as  being  a  question  of  the  interpretation  cf  the  existing  treaties  between 
Germany  and  the  United  Statss  to  the  tribunal  at  the  Hague,  pursuant  to  Article  38  of  The  Hague  Convention  for  the 
pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes. 

The  undersigned  begs  to  suggest  that  the  .Embassador  bring  the  above  to  the  attention  of  his  Government  and  avails 
himself,  etc., 

VoM  Jagow. 

Gekakd. 

Pile  No.  462.11Se8/39. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Gerard. 

[Telegram.] 

Depaktment  of  State, 

Washington,  Attgust  10,  1915. 
You  are  instructed  to  present  the  following  note  to  the  German  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs: 

Under  instructions  from  my  Government,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  Your  Excellency,  in  reply  to  your  note  of 
July  30  in  regard  to  the  claim  for  reparation  for  the  sinking  of  the  William  P.  Frye,  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  learns  ^vith  regret  that  the  objections  urged  by  it  again.st  the  submission  of  this  case  to  the  prize  court  for  decision 
have  not  commended  themselves  to  the  Imperial  German  Government,  and  it  equally  regrets  that  the  reasons  presented 
by  the  Imperial  Gorman  Government  for  submitting  this  case  to  the  prize  court  have  failed  to  remove  the  objections  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  adoption  of  that  course.  As  this  disagreement  has  been  reached  after  the 
full  presentation  of  the  views  of  both  Governments  in  our  previous  correspondence,  a  further  exchange  of  views  on 
the  questions  in  dispute  Would  aoubtless  be  unprofitable,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  therefore  welcomes 
Your  Excellency's  suggestion  that  some  other  way  should  be  found  for  settUng  this  case. 

The  two  methods  of  settlement  proposei  as  alternati\c  suggestions  in  Your  Excellency's  note  have  been  given 
careful  consideration,  and  it  is  believed  that  if  they  can  be  combined  so  that  they  may  both  be  adopted,  they  will 
furnish  a  satisfactory  basis  for  the  solution  of  the  questions  at  issue. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  already  expressed  its  desire  that  the  question  of  the  amount  of  indem- 
nity to  be  paid  by  the  Imperial  German  Government  under  its  admitted  liability  for  the  losses  of  the  owners  and 
captain  on  account  of  the  destruction  of  the  Frye  should  be  settled  by  diplomatic  negotiation,  and  it  entirely  concurs 
with  the  suggestion  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  that  the  simplest  way  would  be  to  agree,  as  proposed  in 


CASE   OP   THE   WILLIAM   P.    FRYE.  189 

your  note,  "tliat  each  of  the  two  Goveraraents  designate  an  expert  and  that  the  two  experts  jointly  fix  the  amount 
of  indemnity  for  tlie  vessel  and  any  American  proi)erty  which  may  have  been  sunk  with  her,"  to  be  paid  by  the 
Imperial  German  Government  when  ascertained  as  stated  in  your  note.  It  is  assumed  tliat  the  arrangement  will 
include  some  provision  for  calling  in  an  umpire  in  case  the  exi)erla  fail  to  agree. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  notes  that  your  su^'i^estion  is  made  with  the  express  reservation  that  a 
payment  under  this  arrangement  would  not  constitute  an  admi.ssion  that  American  treaty  rights  had  been  \dolatefl, 
but  would  be  regar  led  by  the  Imperial  German  Government  merely  as  fulfilling  a  duty  or  policy  founded  on  existing 
treaty  stii)ulation9.  \  ])ayment  made  on  this  understanding  would  be  entirely  acceptable  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  jirovicled  that  the  acceptance  of  such  payment  should  likewise  be  understood  to  be  without 
prejudice  to  the  contention  of  the  Government  of  the  United  Stales  that  the  sinking  of  tlie  Frye  was  without  legal 
justification,  and  provided  also  that  an  arrangement  can  be  agreed  upon  for  tlie  immediate  submission  to  arbitration 
of  the  question  of  legal  justification,  in  so  far  as  it  involves  the  interpretation  of  existing  treaty  stipulations. 

There  can  lie  no  difference  of  opinion  between  the  two  Governments  as  to  the  desirability  of  having  this  question 
of  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  their  treaty  stipulations  determined  without  delay,  and  to  that  end  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  proposes  that  the  alternative  suggestion  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  also  be 
adopted,  so  that  this  cpiostion  of  treaty  interpretation  can  bo  submitted  forthwith  to  arbitration  purfuant  to  article 
38  of  The  Hague  Convention  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes. 

In  this  way  l)oth  the  question  of  indemnity  and  the  question  of  treaty  interpretation  can  promptly  be  settled, 
and  it  will  lie  ol)8crved  that  the  only  change  made  in  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Imperial  German  Government  is  that 
instead  of  eliminating  either  one  of  its  alternative  suggestions,  they  are  both  given  effect  in  order  that  both  of  the 
questions  under  discu.ssion  may  be  dealt  with  at  the  same  time. 

If  this  proposal  proves  acceptable  to  the  Imperial  German  Government,  it  will  be  necessary  also  to  determine 
whether,  pending  the  arbitral  award,  the  Imperial  German  {government  shall  govern  its  naval  operations  in  accord- 
ance with  its  own  interpretation,  or  in  accordance  with  the  interpretation  miiinfiuned  by  the  United  States,  as  to  the 
obligations  imposed  by  their  treaty  stipulations,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be  glad  to  have 
an  expression  of  the  views  of  the  Imperial  German  Government  on  this  point. 

Lansinq. 


PART  XXII. 


THE  SALE  OF  MUNITIONS  OF  WAR  TO  BELLIGERENTS. 


191 


THE  SALE  OF  MUNITIONS  OF  WAR  TO  BELLIGERENTS. 

File  No.  763.72111/2480. 

The  Austro-Hungarian  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  to  Ambassador  Penjleld. 

[Translation.] 

i.  and  r.  mmistby  of  the  imperial  and 
Royal  House  and  fob  Foreign  Affairs, 

Vienna,  June  29,  1915. 

Tho  far-roaching  cffocts  which  result  from  tho  fact  that  for  a  long  time  a  traffic  in  mimitions 
of  war  to  tlio  greatest  extent  has  been  carried  on  between  the  United  States  of  America  on  the 
one  hand  and  Great  Britain  and  its  alhes  on  the  other,  while  Austria-Hungary  as  well  as  Ger- 
many have  been  absolutely  excluded  from  the  American  market,  have  from  the  very  beginning 
attracted  tlie  most  serious  attention  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government. 

If  now  the  undersigned  permits  himself  to  address  himself  to  this  question,  with  which  the 
Washington  Cabinet  has  been  concerned  until  now  only  with  the  Imperial  German  Government, 
he  follows  the  injunction  of  imperative  duty  to  protect  the  interests  intrusted  to  hun  from 
further  serious  damage  which  results  from  this  situation  as  well  to  Austria-Hungary  as  to  the 
German  Empire. 

Although  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  is  absolutely  convinced  that  tho  attitude 
of  the  Federal  Government  in  this  connection  emanates  from  no  other  intention  than  to  maintain 
the  strictest  neutrahty  and  to  conform  to  the  letter  of  the  provisions  of  international  treaties, 
nevertheless  the  question  arises  whether  the  conditions  as  they  have  developed  during  the  course 
of  the  war,  certainly  independently  of  tho  ■wall  of  the  Federal  Government,  are  not  such  as  in 
effect  thwart  tho  intentions'  of  the  Washington  Cabmct  or  even  actually  oppose  them.  In  the 
affirmative  case — .and  affirmation,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government,  can 
not  be  doubted — then  immediately  follows  the  further  question  whether  it  would  not  seem 
possible,  even  imperative,  that  appropriate  measures  be  adopted  toward  bringing  into  full 
effect  the  desire  of  the  Federal  Government  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  strict  parity  with  respect 
to  both  belUgerent  parties.  The  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  does  not  hesitate  to  answer 
also  this  question  unqualifiedly  in  the  aflu-mativo. 

It  can  not  certainly  have  escaped  the  attention  of  the  American  Government,  which  has 
so  eminently  cooperated  in  the  work  of  The  Hague,  that  the  meaning  and  essence  of  neutrality 
are  in  no  way  exhaustively  dealt  with  m  the  fragmentary  provisions  of  the  pertinent  treaties. 
If  one  takes  into  consideration  particularly  the  genesis  of  article  7  of  the  fifth  and  thirteenth 
conventions,  respectively,  upon  which  the  Federal  Government  dearly  relies  in  the  present 
case,  and  the  wording  of  which,  as  is  in  no  way  to  be  denied,  affords  it  a  formal  ijrete.xt  for 
the  toleration  of  traffic  in  munitions  of  war  now  being  carried  on  by  the  United  States,  it  is  only 
necessary,  in  order  to  measure  the  true  spirit  and  import  of  this  provision,  which,  moreover, 
appears  to  have  been  departed  from  in  the  prevention  of  tlic  delivery  of  vessels  of  war  and  in 
the  prevention  of  certain  deliveries  to  vessels  of  war  of  bcUigerent  nations,  to  point  out  the 
fact  that  the  detailed  privileges  conceded  to  neutral  states  in  the  sense  of  tlie  preamble  to  the 
above-mentioned  convention  are  limited  by  the  requirements  of  neutrahty  mIucIi  conform  to 
the  universally  recognized  principles  of  international  law. 

According  to  aU  authorities  on  international  law  who  concern  themselves  more  particularly 
with  the  question  now  under  consideration,  a  neutral  govenmient  may  not  permit  tralhc  in 
contraband  of  war  to  be  carried  on  without  hindrance  when  this  traffic  assumes  such  a  form 
or  sucli  dimensions  that  tho  neutrahty  of  the  nation  becomes  involved  thereby. 

If  an}'  one  of  the  various  criteria  wluch  have  been  laid  down  in  science  in  this  respect  be 
used  as  a  basis  in  determining  the  pemaissibihty  of  commerce  in  contraband,  one  reaches  the 
conclusion  from  each  of  these  criteria  that  the  exportation  of  war  requisites  from  the  United 
States,  as  is  beuig  carried  on  in  the  present  war,  is  not  to  be  brought  mto  acconl  with  the 
demands  of  neutrahty. 

Tho  question  now  before  us  is  surely  not  whether  iVmerican  industries  which  are  engaged 

in  the  manufacture  of  war  material  sliould  be  protected  from  loss  in  tlie  export  trade  that 

was  theirs  in  time  of  ])eace.     Rather  has  that  industry  soared  to  ununagined  heights.     In 

order  to  turn  out  the  huge  quantities  of  anus,  ammunition,  and  other  war  material  of  every 

4556°— 15 13  193 


194  THE    SALE    OF    MUNinONS    OK    WAK    TO    ISELLIOERENTS. 

(loscriiilioii  onlonvl  in  the  ])iist  months  ])y  Gr(-ut  Brifain  and  lior  allies  from  the  United  States, 
not  only  tlio  full  capacity  of  tho  cxistuig  ])lants,  hut  also  their  transformation  and  enlargement 
and  tJio  creation  of  new  large  plants,  as  well  as  a  flocking  of  workmen  of  all  trades  into  that  branch 
of  industry,  in  brief,  far-reaching  changes  of  e(;onomic  life  enconapassing  the  whole  country, 
became  necessary.  From  no  quarter,  then,  can  there  come  any  question  of  the  riglit  of  the 
American  Government  to  prohibit,  through  the  issuance  of  an  endiargo,  that  enormous  expor- 
tation of  war  implements  that  is  openly  carried  on  and,  besides,  is  commoidy  known  to  be 
availed  of  by  only  one  of  the  parties  to  the  war.  If  the  Federal  Government  would  exc^rcise 
that  power  it  possesses,  it  could  not  lay  itself  open  to  blame  if,  in  order  to  keep  within  the 
requirements  of  the  law  of  the  land,  it  adopted  the  course  of  enactmg  a  law.  For  whde  tlie 
prmciple  obtains  that  a  neutral  state  may  not  alter  the  rules  m  force  wathm  its  provhice  con- 
cerning its  attitude  toward  belUgerents  while  war  is  being  waged,  yet  this  principle,  as  clearly 
appears  from  the  preamble  to  the  Tliirteenth  Hague  Convention,  suffers  an  exception  in  the 
case  "oil  I'experieuce  acquise  en  demontrerait  la  n^cessite  jjour  la  sauvegarde  de  ses  droits." 
[Where  experience  has  shown  the  necessity  thereof  for  the  protection  of  its  rights.] 

Moreover,  this  case  is  already  estabUshed  for  the  American  Govermnent  tlirough  the  fact 
that  Austria-Hungary,  as  weU  as  Germany,  is  cut  off  from  all  commercial  mtercourse  with 
the  United  States  of  America  without  the  existence  of  a  legal  prerequisite  therefor — a  legally 
constituted  blockade. 

In  reply  to  the  jjossible  objection  that,  notwithstanding  the  willingness  of  American  industry 
to  furnish  merchandise  to  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  as  M^ell  as  to  Great  Britain  and  her 
allies,  it  is  not  possible  for  the  United  States  of  Anaerica  to  trade  with  Austria-Hungarj'  and 
Germany  as  the  result  of  the  war  situation,  it  may  be  pomted  out  that  the  Federal  Government 
is  midoubtedly  m  a  position  to  improve  the  situation  described.  It  would  be  amply  sufEciont 
to  confront  the  opponents  of  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  with  the  possibility  of  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  exportation  of  foodstuffs  and  raw  materials  in  case  legitimate  commerce  in 
these  articles  between  the  Union  and  the  two  Central  Powers  should  not  be  allowed.  If  the 
Washmgton  Cabinet  should  find  itself  prepared  for  an  action  in  this  sense,  it  would  not  only 
be  following  the  tradition  always  held  in  such  high  regard  in  the  United  States  of  contending 
for  the  freedom  of  legitimate  maritune  commerce,  but  would  also  earn  the  high  merit  of  nullifying 
the  wanton  efforts  of  the  enemies  of  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  to  use  hunger  as  an  ally. 

The  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  may  therefore,  in  the  spirit  of  the  excellent  relations 
which  have  never  ceased  to  exist  between  the  Austro-Hungarian  Monarchy  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  appeal  to  the  Federal  Government  in  sincere  friendship,  in  view  of  the 
expositions  here  set  forth,  to  subject  its  previously  adopted  standpouit  in  this  so  inaportant 
question  to  a  mature  reconsideration.  A  revision  of  the  attitude  observed  by  the  Govermnent 
of  tlic  Union  in  the  sense  of  the  views  advocated  by  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  would, 
according  to  the  convictions  of  the  latter,  be  not  only  within  the  bounds  of  the  rights  and 
obUgations  of  a  neutral  govermnent,  but  also  in  close  keeping  with  those  principles  dictated  by 
true  humanity  and  love  of  peace  which  the  United  States  has  ever  -sn-itten  on  its  banner. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  ask  the  good  offices  of  His  Excellency,  the  ambassador 
extraordinary  and  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Mr.  Frederic  Courtland 
Penfield,  to  convey  the  foregoing  by  telegram  to  the  attention  of  the  Washington  Cabinet;  he 
avails  himscH,  etc., 

BUEIAN. 


File  No.  763.72111/2480. 

TJie  Secretary  of  State  to  Ambassador  Penfield. 
[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

WasJiinfffon,  Aitgust  12,  1915. 

Please  present  a  note  to  the  Royal  Foreign  Office  hi  reply  to  its  note  of  June  29,  in  the 
following  sense: 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  given  careful  <'onsideration  to  the  statement  of 
the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  m  regard  to  the  exportation  of  arms  and  anuuunition  from 
the  United  States  to  the  countries  at  war  with  Austria-Hungaiy  and  Germany.  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  Unit(Ml  States  notes  with  satisfaction  tho  recognition  ])y  the  Im])erial  and  Royal 
Govermnent  of  tho  undoubted  fact  that  its  attitude  with  regard  to  the  exportation  of  arms 
and  ammunition  from  the  United  States  is  prompted  by  its  intention  to  "maintaui  the  strictest 
neutrality  and  to  conform  to  the  letter  of  tlie  provisions  of  ijiternational  treaties,"  but  is  surjirised 
to  find  tho  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  ijnplying  that  the  observance  of  the  strict  j)rinciiiles 
of  the  law  under  the  conditions  which  have  developed  hi  the  ])rosent  war  is  insufficient,  and 


THE    SALE    OF    MUNITIONS    OF    WATl    TO    REI.I.IOERENTR.  195 

assorting  that  tlris  Govrrnniout  sliould  ^o  boyoiul  tlio  loiij,'  rocofjnizod  nilos  govorninf;  such 
traflic  by  lunitrals  and  adc)])t  lucasures  to  "maintain  an  attitude  of  strict  parity  with  respect 
to  both  belligerent  parties." 

To  this  assertion  of  an  obligation  to  change  or  modify  tiie  rn](>s  of  international  usage  on 
account  of  special  conditions  tJie  Government  of  the  Unitetl  States  can  not  accede.  The  recog- 
nition of  an  obligation  of  this  sort,  unknown  to  the  intoniational  practice  of  the  past,  would 
impose  upon  (n-ery  neutral  nation  a  duty  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  progress  of  a  war  and  to 
restrict  its  commercial  intercourse  with  a  belligerent  whoso  naval  successes  ])revented  the  neutral 
from  trade  with  tlie  enem}'.  The  contention  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  appears 
to  be  that  tlie  advantages  gained  to  a  belligerent  ])y  its  superiority  on  tlie  sea  sliould  be  equalized 
by  tiie  neutral  powers  by  tlie  esta])lisliment  of  a  system  of  nonintercoui-so  with  tlio  victor.  The 
Imi)erial  and  Royal  Government  confines  its  comments  to  arms  and  ammunition,  but  if  the 
principle  for  wlucb  it  contends  is  sound,  it  sliould  apply  with  equal  force  to  all  articles  of  contra- 
band. A  Ix'Uigerent  contmlling  the  high  seas  might  possess  an  ample  supply  of  arms  and 
ammunition,  Imt  be  in  want  of  food  and  clothing.  On  the  novel  principle  that  equalization  is 
a  neutral  duty,  neutral  nations  would  be  obligated  to  place  an  embargo  on  such  articles  because 
one  of  the  belligerents  could  not  obtain  tliem  througli  commercial  intercourse. 

But  if  this  prmciple,  so  strongly  urged  by  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government,  should  be 
admitted  to  obtain  by  reason  of  the  superiority  of  a  belligerent  at  sea,  ouglit  it  not  to  operate 
equally  as  to  a  belligerent  superior  on  land  ?  Applying  this  theory  of  equalization,  a  belligerent 
who  lacks  the  necessarj'  munitions  to  contend  successfully  on  land  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
purchase  them  from  neutrals,  while  a  belligerent  with  an  abundance  of  war  stores  or  with  the 
power  to  produce  them  should  bo  debarred  from  such  traffic. 

Manifestly  the  idea  of  strict  neutrality  now  advanced  by  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government 
would  involve  a  neutral  nation  in  a  mass  of  perplexities  which  would  o1)S(uro  the  whole  field  of 
international  oldigation,  produce  economic  confusion,  and  ik^prive  all  commerce  and  industry 
of  legitimate  fields  of  entei-prise,  already  heavily  burdened  by  the  unavoidable  restrictions  of 
war. 

In  this  connection  it  is  pertinent  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Govern- 
ment to  the  fact  that  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany,  particularly  the  latter,  have  during  the 
yeai-s  preceding  the  present  European  v.-ar  produced  a  great  surplus  of  arms  and  ammunition, 
whicli  the}'  sold  throughout  the  Avorld  and  I'specially  to  belligerents.  Never  during  that  period 
did  either  of  them  suggest  or  apply  the  ])rinciple  now  advocated  by  the  Imperial  and  Royal 
Government. 

During  the  Boer  War  between  Great  Britain  and  the  South  African  Republics  the  patrol 
of  the  coasts  of  neighl>oring  neutral  (colonies  b}^  British  naval  vessels  prevented  arms  and  ammuni- 
tions reaching  the  Transvaal  or  the  Orange  Free  State.  The  allied  Republics  were  in  a  situation 
almost  identical  in  that  respect  with  that  in  which  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  find  them- 
selves at  the  present  tune.  Yet,  in  spite  of  the  commercial  isolation  of  one  belligerent,  Germany 
sold  to  Great  Britain,  the  other  belUgerent,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  kilos  of  explosives,  gun- 
powder, cartridgoi,  sliot,  and  weapons;  and  it  is  known  that  Austria-Hungary  also  sold  similsir 
munitions  to  the  same  purchaser,  though  in  snaaller  quantities.  While,  as  compared  with  the 
present  war,  the  quantities  sold  were  small  (a  table  of  the  sales  is  appended),  the  principle  of 
neutrality  involved  was  the  same.  If  at  that  time  Austria-Hungary  and  her  present  ally  had 
refused  to  sell  arms  and  ammunition  to  Great  Britain  on  the  ground  that  to  do  so  would  violate 
the  spirit  of  strict  neutrality,  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  might  with  greater  consistency 
and  greater  force  urge  its  present  contention. 

It  might  be  further  pointed  out  that  during  the  Crimean  War  large  quantities  of  arms  and 
military  stores  were  fmniished  to  Russia  by  Prussian  manufacourei-s;  that  during  the  recent  war 
between  Turkey  and  Italy,  lus  this  Government  is  advised,  arnis  and  ammunition  were  furnished 
to  the  Ottoman  Government  by  Germany;  and  that  during  the  Balkan  wars  the  belligerents 
were  supplied  vv'iih  munitions  by  both  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany.  While  these  latter  cases 
are  not  analogous,  lUJ  is  the  case  of  the  South  African  War,  to  the  situation  of  Austria-Hungary 
and  Germaiiy  in  the  present  war,  they  nevertheless  clearly  indicate  the  long-established  practice 
of  the  two  Empires  in  the  matter  of  trade  in  war  supplies. 

In  view  of  the  foregouig  statements,  this  Government  is  reluctant  to  believe  that  the 
Imperial  and  Royal  Govcnmient  wiU  ascribe  to  the  United  States  a  lack  of  impartiid  neutrality 
ill  contmuuig  its  legithnate  trade  iji  aU  kinds  of  supphes  used  to  render  the  armed  forces  of  a 
belligerent  elficient,  even  tliough  the  circumstances  of  the  present  war  prevent  Austria-Hungary 
from  obtauung  such  supplies  from  the  markets  of  the  United  States,  which  have  been  and  remain, 
so  far  as  tlie  action  and  pohcy  of  this  Government  are  concerned,  opeii  to  all  belligerents  alike. 

But,  iji  addition  to  the  question  of  princi])le,  there  is  a  practical  a;ul  substantial  reason 
why  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  from  the  foimdation  of  the  Republic  to  the 


196  THE   SALE   OF   MUNITIONS   OF    WAR   TO   BELLIGERENTS. 

present  time  advocated  and  jiracticcd  luircstricted  trade  m  arms  and  military  supplies.  It  has 
never  been  the  policy  of  this  country  to  maintain  in  time  of  peace  a  largo  military  establishment 
or  stores  of  arms  and  ammunition  sufTiciont.  to  repel  invasion  by  a  wcll-oquipped  and  powerful 
enemy.  It  has  desired  to  remabi  at  peace  with  aU  nations  and  to  avoid  any  appearance  of 
menacing  such  peace  by  the  threat  of  its  armies  and  navies.  In  consequence  of  this  standing 
policy  the  United  States  would,  in  the  event  of  attack  by  a  foreign  power,  be  at  the  outset  of 
the  war  seriously,  if  iiot  fatally,  embarrassed  by  the  lack  of  arms  and  ammunition  and  by  the 
means  to  produce  them  in  sufficient  quantities  to  supply  the  requirements  of  national  defense. 
Tlio  United  States  lias  always  dcpejided  iipon  the  riglit  and  power  to  purchase  arms  and  ammu- 
nition from  neutral  nati<ms  in  case  of  foreign  attack.  Tliis  riglit,  which  it  claims  for  itself,  it 
can  not  deny  to  others. 

A  nation  whoso  principle  and  policy  it  is  to  rely  tipon  iTitematiojial  obligations  and  inter- 
national justice  to  preserve  its  pohtical  and  territorial  integrity  miglio  Ijecome  the  i:)rey  of  an 
aggressive  nation  whose  pohcy  and  practice  it  is  to  increase  its  mihtary  strength  during  times  of 
peace  with  the  design  of  conquest,  luxless  the  nation  attacked  can,  afi.er  war  had  been  declared, 
go  iiito  the  markets  of  the  world  and  pm'chase  the  means  to  defend  itself  agauist  the  aggressor. 

The  general  adoption  hj  the  nations  of  the  world  of  the  theory  that  neutral  powers  ought 
to  prohibit  the  sale  of  arms  and  ammmiition  to  belligerents  would  compel  every  nation  to  liave 
in  readiness  at  aU  tunes  sufficient  munitions  of  war  to  meet  any  emergency  which  might  arise 
and  to  erect  and  maintain  establishments  for  the  manufacture  of  arms  and  ammunition  sufficient 
to  supply  the  needs  of  its  mihtary  and  naval  forces  throughout  the  progress  of  a  war.  Mani- 
festly the  apphcation  of  this  theory  would  result  in  every  nation  becoming  an  armed  camp, 
ready  to  resist  aggression  and  tempted  to  employ  force  in  asserting  its  rights  rather  than  appeal 
to  reason  and  justice  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes. 

Perceivmg,  as  it  does,  that  the  adoption  of  tihe  principle  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  neutral  to 
prohibit  the  sale  of  arms  and  ammunition  to  a  belligerent  during  the  progress  of  a  war  would 
mevitably  give  the  advai^^age  to  the  beUigerent  which  had  encom-agcd  the  manufacture  of 
munitions  in  time  of  peace  and  which  had  laid  in  vast  stores  of  arms  and  amnimiition  in  antici- 
pation of  war,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  convinced  that  the  adoption  of  the  theory 
woidd  force  militarism  on  the  world  and  work  agamst  that  imiversal  peace  which  is  the  desire 
and  purpose  of  all  nations  which  exalt  justice  and  righteousness  in  then  relations  with  one 
another. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  iri  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the  practical  reason 
why  it  has  advocated  and  practiced  trade  in  munitions  of  war,  wishes  to  be  undei-stood  as  speaking 
with  no  thought  of  expressing  or  implying  any  judgment  with  regard  to  the  circTunstances 
of  the  present  war,  but  as  merely  putting  very  frankly  the  argument  m  this  matter  which  lias 
been  conclusive  in  determming  the  pohcy  of  the  United  States. 

While  the  practice  of  nations,  so  well  illustrated  by  the  practice  of  Austria-Hungary  and 
Germany  during  the  South  African  War,  and  the  manifest  evil  which  would  result  from  a  change 
of  that  practice  render  compliance  with  the  suggestions  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government 
out  of  the  question,  certain  assertions  appearmg  in  the  Austro-Himgarian  statement  as  grounds 
for  its  contentions  can  not  be  passed  over  without  comment.  These  assertions  are  substantially 
as  follows:  (1)  That  the  exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition  from  the  United  States  to  beUiger- 
ents  contravenes  the  preamble  of  The  Hague  Convention  No.  13  of  1907;  (2)  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  refusal  of  this  Government  to  allow  dcUvery  of  supplies  to  vessels  of  war  on  the  high 
seas;  (3)  that,  "according  to  all  authorities  on  international  law  who  concern  themselves  more 
properly  with  the  question,"  exportation  should  be  prevented  "when  this  traffic  assimaes  such  a 
form  or  such  dimensions  that  the  neutrality  of  a  nation  becomes  mvolved  thereby." 

As  to  the  assertion  that  the  exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition  contravenes  the  preamble 
of  The  Hague  Convention  No.  13  of  1907,  this  Government  presimies  that  reference  is  made  to 
the  last  paragraph  of  the  preamble,  which  is  as  follows:  "Seeing  that,  in  this  categoiy  of  ideas, 
these  rules  should  not,  in  pruiciple,  be  altered,  in  the  course  of  the  war,  by  a  neutral  power, 
except  in  a  case  where  experience  has  shown  the  necessity  for  such  change  for  the  protection 
of  the  rights  of  that  power." 

Manifestly  the  only  ground  to  change  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Convention,  one  of  which, 
it  should  be  noted,  expli<'itly  declares  that  a  neutral  is  not  bound  to  prohibit  the  exportation  of 
contraliand  of  war,  is  the  necessity  of  a  neutral  power  to  do  so  in  order  to  protect  its  own  rights. 
The  right  and  duty  to  determine  when  this  necessity  exists  rests  witli  the  neutral,  not  with  a 
beUigerent.  It  is  discretionary,  not  mandatory.  If  a  neutral  power  does  not  avail  itself  of  the 
right,  a  beUigerent  is  not  privileged  to  complain,  for  in  domg  so  it  would  be  in  the  position 
of  de<'laring  to  the  neutral  power  what  is  necessary  to  jirotect  that  ])ower's  own  I'ights.  The 
Imperial  and  Royal  Goverimient  can  not  but  perceive  that  a  complaint  of  this  nature  would 
invite  just  rebuke. 


THE   SALE   OF    MUNITIONS   OF   WAR   TO   BELLIGERENTS.  197 

With  rcforonco  to  tho  assorted  iiironsistciicy  <>f  the  course  adopted  by  this  Government  in 
relation  to  tlic  exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition  and  that  followed  in  not  allowing  supplies 
to  be  taken  from  its  ports  to  ships  of  war  on  the  high  seas,  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  out 
that  the  prohil)ition  of  suj)plies  to  shi])s  of  war  rests  upon  the  principle  that  a  neutral  power 
must  not  permit  its  territory  to  become  a  naval  base  for  eitlier  l)elligerent.  A  warship  may, 
under  certain  restrictions,  obtain  fuel  and  supplies  in  a  neutral  port  once  in  three  months.  To 
permit  merchant  vessels  acting  as  tenders  to  carry  supplies  more  often  than  three  months  and 
in  unlimited  amount  would  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  rule  and  might  constitute  the  neutral 
territory  a  naval  base.  Furthermore,  this  Government  is  unaware  that  any  Austro-Hungarian 
ship  of  war  has  sought  to  ()1)tain  supplies  from  a  ]iort  in  the  United  States,  either  directly  or 
indirectly.  Tliis  subject  luis,  however,  already  been  discussed  with  the  Imperial  German 
Government,  to  which  the  position  of  this  Government  was  fully  set  forth  December  24,  1914. 

In  view  of  the  positive  assertion  in  the  statement  of  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  as 
to  tlie  imanimity  of  the  oj)inions  of  text-writers  as  to  the  exportation  of  contraband  being 
unneutral,  tliis  Government  has  caused  a  careful  examination  of  the  principal  authorities  on 
international  law  to  1>e  made.  As  a  result  of  this  examination  it  has  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  tho  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  lias  been  misled  and  has  inadvertently  made  an 
erroneous  assertion.  Less  than  one-fiftli  of  the  authorities  consulted  advocate  unreservedly 
the  prohibition  of  the  export  of  contraband.  Several  of  those  who  constitute  this  minority 
admit  that  the  practice  of  nations  hjis  been  otherwise.  It  may  not  be  inopportune  to  direct 
particular  attention  to  the  declaration  of  the  German  authority,  Paul  Einicke,  who  states  that 
at  the  beginning  of  a  war,  belligerents  have  never  remonstrated  against  tlie  enactment  of  pro- 
hibitions on  trade  in  contraband,  but  adds  ''that  such  prohibitions  may  be  considered  sxs  viola- 
tions of  neutrality,  or  at  least  as  unfriendly  acts,  if  they  are  enacted  during  a  war  with  the 
purpose  to  close  unexpectedly  the  sources  of  supply  to  a  party  which  heretofore  had  relied  on 
them." 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  deems  it  unnecessary  to  extend  further  at  the  present 
time  a  consideration  of  the  statement  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Government.  The  principles 
of  international  law,  the  practice  of  nations,  the  national  safety  of  the  United  States  and  other 
nations  without  great  military  and  naval  establishments,  the  prevention  of  increased  armies 
and  navies,  the  adoption  of  peaceful  methods  for  the  adjustment  of  international  differences,  and, 
finally,  neutrality  itself  are  opposed  to  the  prohibition  by  a  neutral  nation  of  the  exportation  of 
arms,  ammunition,  or  other  munitions  of  war  to  belUgerent  powers  during  the  progress  of 
the  war. 

Lansing. 


APPENDIX. 


German  Ejcports  of  Arms  and  Ammunition  to  Great  Britain. 


Articles. 


Explosives 

Gunpowder 

Gun  barrels 

Shot,  of  malleable  iron,  not  polished,  etc 

Shot  (further  manufactured),  polished  etc.,  not  lead  coated. 

Shot,  nickeled  or  lead  coated  with  copper  rings,  etc 

Weapons  for  war  purposes 

Cartridges  with  copper  shells  and  percussion  caps 


Quantity,  100  kilos. 


1899 


4,342 
28 
12 
30 


904 


1900 


6,014 

658 

366 

43 

4 

3,018 


1,595 


1901  1902 


5,147 

243 

21 

38 


176 

18 

866 


3, 645 

69 

133 


2 
982 


Austro-Hungarian  Exports  of  Arms  and  Ammunition  to  Great  Britain. 


Articles. 

Quantity, 

100  kilos. 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

Arms,  pTclnsive  nf  smnll  nrms 

190 
1 

2 

i 

374 
1 
3 

7 

12 

Separate  parts  of  arms 

Small  arms 

80 

16 

4 

Ammunition  and  explosives  under  tariff  No.  346 

51 

Other  ammunition  and  efrplosives 

^                                                                              1 

198 


O 


